could anyone recommend a tool and a book for web-make

[lixiaoyao]

hi all
I am beginner for html, I want to make a website for myself, could
anyone recommend a tool for it and also an introduction book? I
appreciate it.
Thanks
B

 

[BlueC]

hi all
I am beginner for html, I want to make a website for myself, could
anyone recommend a tool for it and also an introduction book? I
appreciate it.
Thanks
B

If you are serious about learning HTML then use a simple text editor.
Notepad will do to start with. I personally like Crimson Editor because
it is free, stable, fast, and has many nice functions, others will like
other applications. It's horses for courses.

Personally I think if you are trying to learn HTML you should steer well
clear of WYSIWYG editors like Dreamweaver. If you just want to learn how
to build a website and don't care about the HTML then WYSIWYG is useful,
but you won't ever understand HTML properly that way.

*Don't go anywhere near FrontPage or other MS products, they don't
produce correct HTML.*

I have never read a HTML book (I have bought them, but I don't learn
well from books, I learn from doing) and I think www.w3schools.com is
hard to beat for the beginner trying to learn HTML and CSS (and more).

 

[Andrew]

If you are serious about learning HTML then use a simple text editor.
Notepad will do to start with. I personally like Crimson Editor because
it is free, stable, fast, and has many nice functions, others will like
other applications. It's horses for courses.

Personally I think if you are trying to learn HTML you should steer well
clear of WYSIWYG editors like Dreamweaver. If you just want to learn how
to build a website and don't care about the HTML then WYSIWYG is useful,
but you won't ever understand HTML properly that way.

*Don't go anywhere near FrontPage or other MS products, they don't
produce correct HTML.*

I have never read a HTML book (I have bought them, but I don't learn
well from books, I learn from doing) and I think www.w3schools.com is
hard to beat for the beginner trying to learn HTML and CSS (and more).

Hi,

Dreamweaver has received at the most grudging praise from many using
this NG but I think if many tried the current version (version 8, the
last before the Adobe takeover!) they would perhaps regret their faint
praise. The program has come a long way.

While not the best program for anybody learning HTML from scratch,
more so because of the complexity of the program itself, if it is used
correctly and with a sound background knowledge of HTML it will
produce excellent sites that are standards compliant.

It is a bit like owning a chain-saw: you can carve up a beautiful
forest and send it for chipping, or with sufficient skill you can
create a sculpture from a block of wood.

Andrew.

PS Could Adobe/Macromedia send me money for this plug? Please??

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

It is a bit like owning a chain-saw: you can carve up a beautiful
forest and send it for chipping, or with sufficient skill you can
create a sculpture from a block of wood.

Frankly, I don't know DW. I do have a background in HTML and CSS. Your
analogy doesn't address a third case. You can kickback and saw yourself
if you don't know what you're doing or are careless. Otherwise, it's a
great analogy

leo

 

[Donna]

In my class our text wasn't quite this book, but same publisher and
similar
http://www.samspublishing.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=076866635X&rl=1

My text is called Sams Teach Yourself Web Publishing with HTML and
XHTML in 21 days.

this was my college text and I thought this book worked great. Look
around on the website above for this book. As a companion I used a
Dummies book, I ove the one I have, don't have it handy though, but
it's like 7 books combined into 1, it has a book on HTML, one on JAVA,
one on Dreamweaver, another on multimedia files on your website,
another on Front Page, antoher one on XML, and I can't remember what
the last one is. But it's all included in one big book, saves space
and it great to keep on hand.

Good luck!
Donna

 

[Andy Dingley]

I am beginner for html, I want to make a website for myself, could
anyone recommend a tool for it and also an introduction book? I

Tools:

VERY SIMPLE editors. Don't use a WYSIWYG tool like DreamWeaver,
because it's expensive and you don't need it.

If you begin with very simple sites and never code anything you don't
understand, then you'll build simple sites reasonably easily. You'll
also become far more expert at really understanding HTML (it's not
hard) and you'll make better sites. Now you won't make a complex site
overnight, but then you're a beginner and you have to start somewhere.

HTMLKit and NVU are worth looking at, but I just use very simple text
editors like jEdit, Eclipse and TextPad. (these tools are free too!)

Frontpage (anything web-related from M$oft) is just a badly-done tool
and should be avoided at all costs.


Books:

Elizabeth Castro's HTML book.

Lie & Bos' CSS book.

The newish "Head First" series of books are very good and there's a
HTML / XHTML / CSS book in the series. I'd take a good look at that.


Advice:

Code in HTML 4.01 Strict

Ignore XHTML and XML

Code well-formed and valid code, and use a validator.

Learn CSS from the very beginning and always write good 2006-style
code. Avoid 1997-style HTML 3.2 and <table> layout.

Don't code things you don't understand.

Don't code non-standard HTML with funny extensions for M$oft.

Don't confuse MySpace or geocities with web hosting.

Code for the standard, view and test in a standard compliant browser
(try FireFox) and worry about IE afterwards

Don't trust old books or websites. Almost all HTML tutorials are bad,
obsolete or both.

Keep reading this newsgroup and c.i.w.a.h because they're the best
resources around.

 

[Chaddy2222]

Tools:

VERY SIMPLE editors. Don't use a WYSIWYG tool like DreamWeaver,
because it's expensive and you don't need it.

If you begin with very simple sites and never code anything you don't
understand, then you'll build simple sites reasonably easily. You'll
also become far more expert at really understanding HTML (it's not
hard) and you'll make better sites. Now you won't make a complex site
overnight, but then you're a beginner and you have to start somewhere.

HTMLKit and NVU are worth looking at, but I just use very simple text
editors like jEdit, Eclipse and TextPad. (these tools are free too!)

I actually use both NVU and HTML-Kit, they are both good, (but for
there own reasons).
I also use Notepad for very simple editing.
By the way, NVU is actually WYSIWYG.

Frontpage (anything web-related from M$oft) is just a badly-done tool
and should be avoided at all costs.

Yes, I agree.
Though IE works ok if you disable items such as ActiveX and JS, but I
offten disable images as well.

Books:

Elizabeth Castro's HTML book.

Lie & Bos' CSS book.

The newish "Head First" series of books are very good and there's a
HTML / XHTML / CSS book in the series. I'd take a good look at that.


Advice:

Code in HTML 4.01 Strict

Ignore XHTML and XML

Code well-formed and valid code, and use a validator.

That should be the W3C validator by the way, http://validator.w3.org
Don't bother with any other validator, they are not actually any good
and will cost you money.

Learn CSS from the very beginning and always write good 2006-style
code. Avoid 1997-style HTML 3.2 and <table> layout.

Don't code things you don't understand.

Interesting advice, but sounds good though.

Don't code non-standard HTML with funny extensions for M$oft.

I agree.

Don't confuse MySpace or geocities with web hosting.

Good advice.

Code for the standard, view and test in a standard compliant browser
(try FireFox) and worry about IE afterwards

Also, don't code stuff in Quirks mode.

Don't trust old books or websites. Almost all HTML tutorials are bad,
obsolete or both.

Here is a case in point.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.htmlgoodies.com/&amp;ss=1&amp;outline=1

I found it very amuseing that a site teaching people about HTML could
have 128 errors, in it's HTML, (and that was only the index page).

Keep reading this newsgroup and c.i.w.a.h because they're the best
resources around.

Yes, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Nikita the Spider]

That should be the W3C validator by the way, http://validator.w3.org
Don't bother with any other validator, they are not actually any good
and will cost you money.

I beg to differ. =) The W3C's validator is definitely the gold standard,
but there are a number of other validators available that use the same
technology behind the scenes and are not to be dismissed. They might
even offer features that the W3C Validator doesn't. For instance, the
WDG validator (http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/index.html.en) gives
extra warnings that the W3C Validator doesn't and can validate up to 100
pages at once, and mine (see my sig) can validate an entire site, does
link checking along the way and has some other nice features too. This
doesn't make one better than the other; they just serve different needs.

You're right that there are some products of dubious merit that call
themselves validators, but there's no need to paint with such a broad
brush.

Other than this quibble, I agree with all of the other excellent advice
posted so far in this thread.

Cheers

 

[Joe]

Advice:

Code in HTML 4.01 Strict .... with a proper DTD/doctype

Ignore XHTML and XML

Code well-formed and valid code, and use a validator.

either an online one, or Liam Quinns.

Learn CSS from the very beginning and always write good 2006-style
code. Avoid 1997-style HTML 3.2 and <table> layout.

Don't code things you don't understand.

I'd say halleluhyah - but I can't spell it. WRite it *large*

Don't code non-standard HTML with funny extensions for M$oft.

Don't confuse MySpace or geocities with web hosting.

Code for the standard, view and test in a standard compliant browser
(try FireFox) and worry about IE afterwards

First Opera, then Moz/FF, then IE

Don't trust old books or websites. Almost all HTML tutorials are bad,
obsolete or both. Yes!!!

Keep reading this newsgroup and c.i.w.a.h because they're the best
resources around.

Excellent advise.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I'd say halleluhyah - but I can't spell it. WRite it *large*

hallelujah

 

[freemont]

Code in HTML 4.01 Strict

Ignore XHTML and XML

Why this bit?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Why this bit?

Search the group your will find it discussed to death. Not need to
reiterate here.

 

[Nik Coughlin]

Why this bit?

http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

 

[Chaddy2222]

I beg to differ. =) The W3C's validator is definitely the gold standard,
but there are a number of other validators available that use the same
technology behind the scenes and are not to be dismissed. They might
even offer features that the W3C Validator doesn't. For instance, the
WDG validator (http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/index.html.en) gives
extra warnings that the W3C Validator doesn't and can validate up to 100
pages at once, and mine (see my sig) can validate an entire site, does
link checking along the way and has some other nice features too. This
doesn't make one better than the other; they just serve different needs.

You're right that there are some products of dubious merit that call
themselves validators, but there's no need to paint with such a broad
brush.

Ok, I see what you mean, perhaps I should have said use a proper HTML
validator, such as the one from the W3C.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Why this bit?

No benefits at all unless you're doing something really quite advanced.

Not possible to deploy it widely as XML.

Doing it competently without XML (appendix C) is hard and complex.

It's too fashionable to advocate XHTML blindly (CIW are doing it) and
the OP is a beginner who might otherwise be misled.

 

[freemont]

No benefits at all unless you're doing something really quite advanced.

Not possible to deploy it widely as XML.

Doing it competently without XML (appendix C) is hard and complex.

It's too fashionable to advocate XHTML blindly (CIW are doing it) and the
OP is a beginner who might otherwise be misled.

Thanks you two, I had no idea. Very interesting stuff. From now on 4.01
Strict it is.