Can I do this in Frontpage?

[Chaddy2222]

Except that they are nigh on impenetrable by ordinary folk. Or even
well-versed folk. A publication of standards is a great citation in an
argument but it is a terribly bad reference on how to do anything. If
all someone wants to do is get their boat out of their dock safely, do
not send them to the Coast Guard specs on boating safety. It won't help
- at all.

Likewise, if all someone wants to do is learn how to wash their car in
an eco-friendly way, don't send them to a page on how to formulate
detergents. They don't want that. It won't help them. All it will do
is frustrate them and make you seem like an iconoclastic asshole.

So, yeah, w3chools is flawed. Ok. But it is helpful in a basic way.
And when the user graduates from the basics you all can guide them into
the next level of enlightenment.

In the meantime? Provide a good (simple) alternative.

That's why HTML dog is good, it's an into to decent modern codeing
standards.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:52:13
GMT Ed Mullen scribed:

Except that they are nigh on impenetrable by ordinary folk. Or even
well-versed folk. A publication of standards is a great citation in
an argument but it is a terribly bad reference on how to do anything.
If all someone wants to do is get their boat out of their dock safely,
do not send them to the Coast Guard specs on boating safety. It won't
help - at all.

Likewise, if all someone wants to do is learn how to wash their car in
an eco-friendly way, don't send them to a page on how to formulate
detergents. They don't want that. It won't help them. All it will
do is frustrate them and make you seem like an iconoclastic asshole.

I, er, understand your point and concur in those areas where it is most
pertinent, but I think there is some leeway to be had in this general
scope. Outside of the very, very considerable help I've received here,
my only source of knowledge with respect to css were the w3c
specifications and the examples I contrived based upon them. The same
is pretty much true for html, although I did initially examine "foreign"
hypertext documents to get the "gist" of html authoring after playing
around with Frontpage a bit. _Some_ of the specs are very readable and
enlightening; some are not. It would only be fair to say that they are
not a total loss even to a newbie.

So, yeah, w3chools is flawed. Ok. But it is helpful in a basic way.
And when the user graduates from the basics you all can guide them
into the next level of enlightenment.

In the meantime? Provide a good (simple) alternative.

Can't comment on w3schools or htmldog or any of that because I've never
tried them. Some are undoubtedly beneficial for initial learning, but
IMO nothing replaces the ol' "Sweat of the brow" work-ethic of studying
the specs and trying things out directly for yourself.

 

[Andy Dingley]

So, yeah, w3chools is flawed.
[...]
In the meantime? Provide a good (simple) alternative.

Head First, or htmldog

Both are accurate, not wrong, not misleading. Head First in particular
teaches a good "mindset" that you can build on afterwards.

W3Schools is sometimes right, but only by accident. They make no more
attempt to teach a real _understanding_ of HTML, or good current
practice, then those old 3.2 sites that merely listed tags.


I'm _very_ fussy. The biggest gripe I can find in Head First is a
minor point over font sizing.

 

[Andy Dingley]

http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/
Which one is suitable for HTML/CSS/Javascript/PHP?

Not sure. Eclipse is a framework and you can bolt lots of different
plug-ins to it. As to the most easily downloadable packages, there
isn't one on that site that's targetted at simple static HTML work.
I'm mainly doing Java work in it, but my Eclipse install is a couple
of years old now and has all sorts of things tacked onto it.

I'd suggest the PHP one for starters. It'll certainly work, you might
find better things too.