HTML textbook recommendations

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Mark Parnell, Oct 7, 2005.

  1. Mark Parnell

    Mark Parnell Guest

    In our last episode, Stan McCann <> pronounced to
    alt.html:

    > Hello all,


    G'day.

    > I teach web development courses at the local community college. For my
    > beginning HTML course, I have been using "HTML For The World Wide Web
    > with XHTML and CSS" by Elizabeth Castro. I am looking for a different
    > book; one that instructs HTML 4.01 strict rather than transitional; one
    > that does not mention a bunch of deprecated elements.


    Don't know of any myself - haven't ever used a book for HTML. I take it
    you do want a physical book, rather than something online? There *are* a
    couple of good online tutorial/reference sites.

    > Maybe I'm going to have to write one? Anyone interested in co-
    > authoring?


    Love to if I had the time. :)

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
    Mark Parnell, Oct 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark Parnell

    Stan McCann Guest

    Hello all,

    I teach web development courses at the local community college. For my
    beginning HTML course, I have been using "HTML For The World Wide Web
    with XHTML and CSS" by Elizabeth Castro. I am looking for a different
    book; one that instructs HTML 4.01 strict rather than transitional; one
    that does not mention a bunch of deprecated elements. Anyone know of
    such a book? So far, every book I've looked at seems to recommend the
    use of transitional rather than strictif they mention a doctype at all.
    I don't understand why it is so difficult to find a book to teach
    *modern* methods instead of transitional methods when "transition" is
    long past. I teach that all new pages should be coded strictly to the
    W3C recommendation. It's getting tiresome having to unteach much of
    what the textbook offers.

    Maybe I'm going to have to write one? Anyone interested in co-
    authoring?

    For the record. This group, ciwah and ciwas are great resources for my
    classes. Thanks to all, especially the regulars that are so helpful to
    so many. I don't post a lot, but I sure find some good reading in
    these groups. Thanks.

    --
    Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
    Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
    http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
    Those that understand binary and those that don't.
    Stan McCann, Oct 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark Parnell

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Stan McCann quothed:

    > Hello all,
    >
    > I teach web development courses at the local community college. For my
    > beginning HTML course, I have been using "HTML For The World Wide Web
    > with XHTML and CSS" by Elizabeth Castro. I am looking for a different
    > book; one that instructs HTML 4.01 strict rather than transitional; one
    > that does not mention a bunch of deprecated elements. Anyone know of
    > such a book? So far, every book I've looked at seems to recommend the
    > use of transitional rather than strictif they mention a doctype at all.
    > I don't understand why it is so difficult to find a book to teach
    > *modern* methods instead of transitional methods when "transition" is
    > long past. I teach that all new pages should be coded strictly to the
    > W3C recommendation. It's getting tiresome having to unteach much of
    > what the textbook offers.


    Dave Raggett of w3c infamy has an html book out, although I dunno how
    good it is - having not read it. I would asssssssssssume, however, that
    it's up-to-date.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Oct 7, 2005
    #3
  4. Mark Parnell

    Mark Parnell Guest

    In our last episode, Neredbojias <>
    pronounced to alt.html:

    > Dave Raggett of w3c infamy has an html book out, although I dunno how
    > good it is - having not read it. I would asssssssssssume, however, that
    > it's up-to-date.


    The only one listed at http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/ is Raggett on
    HTML4 (at the bottom of the page), which was published in 1998 and is
    apparently out of print. It may be good, but if it's out of print, it's
    probably not much good to Stan. :-(

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
    Mark Parnell, Oct 7, 2005
    #4
  5. Mark Parnell

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Stan McCann wrote:

    > I am looking for a different book; one that instructs HTML 4.01 strict
    > rather than transitional; one that does not mention a bunch of
    > deprecated elements. Anyone know of such a book?


    If you can tolerate XHTML 1.0 Strict, then
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0321311396/103-9186337-5043856

    It's written by Patrick Griffiths, of htmldog.com fame. His approach is
    one of rigid separation of content, style and behaviour.

    Unfortunately, it's still on pre-order.

    That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Oct 7, 2005
    #5
  6. Mark Parnell

    Jake Guest

    In message
    <434605d9$0$19783$>, Mark
    Parnell <> writes
    >In our last episode, Neredbojias <>
    >pronounced to alt.html:
    >
    >> Dave Raggett of w3c infamy has an html book out, although I dunno how
    >> good it is - having not read it. I would asssssssssssume, however, that
    >> it's up-to-date.

    >
    >The only one listed at http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/ is Raggett on
    >HTML4 (at the bottom of the page), which was published in 1998 and is
    >apparently out of print. It may be good, but if it's out of print, it's
    >probably not much good to Stan. :-(
    >


    Amazon (UK) has a number of copies, shipping from either the UK or US.

    What's surprising is to see the price they are selling for, compared
    with the price I paid for mine (2nd edition) some years ago (from £32 to
    £93 -- I paid £25 for my copy). On its way to becoming a 'collectible'?

    Excellent book.

    One or two of DR's comments (in the book), though, may not go down too
    well with this group ;-)

    regards.



    --
    Jake ( -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)
    Jake, Oct 7, 2005
    #6
  7. Mark Parnell

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On 6 Oct 2005 19:57:23 -0700, Stan McCann <> wrote:

    >Maybe I'm going to have to write one? Anyone interested in co-
    >authoring?
    >


    Be sure and hook up with a good Editor. The word on your web site -
    siteseeing - may describe looking at sites on the web, but it's a day
    of "sightseeing" when you go around to see the sights. You also need
    some help with punctuation.

    The "Album" style of presenting images is good, though.
    Tony Cooper, Oct 7, 2005
    #7
  8. Mark Parnell

    Stan McCann Guest

    Tony Cooper <> wrote in
    news::

    > On 6 Oct 2005 19:57:23 -0700, Stan McCann <> wrote:
    >
    >>Maybe I'm going to have to write one? Anyone interested in co-
    >>authoring?
    >>

    >
    > Be sure and hook up with a good Editor. The word on your web site -
    > siteseeing - may describe looking at sites on the web, but it's a day
    > of "sightseeing" when you go around to see the sights. You also need
    > some help with punctuation.


    I asked about a book, not a site critique. And a bad one at that; if
    you wish to criticize, at least say what you are criticizing. I can
    only guess that you found some typos and puncuation problems somewhere
    on one (or more?) of the pages I have on my *personal* site for which I
    really don't spend a lot of time on details.

    >
    > The "Album" style of presenting images is good, though.


    Quite easily done using "album from Dave's MarginalHacks" which
    generates the pages. All I do is put the pictures in a directory and
    run album. I've not looked at the markup in detail so don't know if it
    is any good or not.

    Thanks to others that answered my question, even though I didn't get
    the answers I wanted. I did pretty much get the answers I expected.

    --
    Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
    Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
    http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
    Those that understand binary and those that don't.
    Stan McCann, Oct 7, 2005
    #8
  9. Mark Parnell

    Guest Guest

    "Stan McCann" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns96E7CAE3CF501stanmccann@216.234.192.142...
    > Hello all,
    >
    > I teach web development courses at the local community college. For my
    > beginning HTML course, I have been using "HTML For The World Wide Web
    > with XHTML and CSS" by Elizabeth Castro. I am looking for a different
    > book; one that instructs HTML 4.01 strict rather than transitional; one
    > that does not mention a bunch of deprecated elements. Anyone know of
    > such a book? So far, every book I've looked at seems to recommend the
    > use of transitional rather than strictif they mention a doctype at all.
    > I don't understand why it is so difficult to find a book to teach
    > *modern* methods instead of transitional methods when "transition" is
    > long past. I teach that all new pages should be coded strictly to the
    > W3C recommendation. It's getting tiresome having to unteach much of
    > what the textbook offers.
    >
    > Maybe I'm going to have to write one? Anyone interested in co-
    > authoring?
    >
    > For the record. This group, ciwah and ciwas are great resources for my
    > classes. Thanks to all, especially the regulars that are so helpful to
    > so many. I don't post a lot, but I sure find some good reading in
    > these groups. Thanks.


    Stan,

    I used "web design & Development using XHTML". I it is both usefull and
    informative. I have not looked at it in quite a while but I would reccomend
    you taking a look at it. Here is the URL for the publisher:
    http://www.fbeedle.com/57-0.html
    Hope this helps.

    Jon
    Guest, Oct 7, 2005
    #9
  10. Mark Parnell

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On 7 Oct 2005 12:07:19 -0700, Stan McCann <> wrote:

    >Tony Cooper <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> On 6 Oct 2005 19:57:23 -0700, Stan McCann <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Maybe I'm going to have to write one? Anyone interested in co-
    >>>authoring?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Be sure and hook up with a good Editor. The word on your web site -
    >> siteseeing - may describe looking at sites on the web, but it's a day
    >> of "sightseeing" when you go around to see the sights. You also need
    >> some help with punctuation.

    >
    >I asked about a book, not a site critique. And a bad one at that; if
    >you wish to criticize, at least say what you are criticizing.


    You also brought up writing a book. That leads me to wonder if you
    can write.

    What is not clear about "sightseeing" instead of "siteseeing"? The
    punctuation errors are in sentences containing parenthetical clauses
    or what should be parenthetical clauses.

    >I can
    >only guess that you found some typos and puncuation problems somewhere
    >on one (or more?) of the pages I have on my *personal* site for which I
    >really don't spend a lot of time on details.


    When you post a linking URL in a newsgroup, your web site is no longer
    private. You are inviting viewers by including the site in your sig.

    If you are considering writing a book, or co-authoring a book, your
    attention to detail would be important. Most errors in writing html
    are caused by missing details. I wouldn't want to buy a book that
    teaches html written by someone who thinks that details are
    unimportant or take a course from someone who thinks details are
    unimportant.

    I'm sure you know the subject, but my advice to hook up with a good
    Editor if you decide to write about the subject still stands.
    Tony Cooper, Oct 7, 2005
    #10
  11. Mark Parnell

    Stan McCann Guest

    Tony Cooper <> wrote in
    news::

    > On 7 Oct 2005 12:07:19 -0700, Stan McCann <> wrote:
    >
    >>Tony Cooper <> wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>> On 6 Oct 2005 19:57:23 -0700, Stan McCann <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Maybe I'm going to have to write one? Anyone interested in co-
    >>>>authoring?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Be sure and hook up with a good Editor. The word on your web site
    >>> - siteseeing - may describe looking at sites on the web, but it's
    >>> a day of "sightseeing" when you go around to see the sights. You
    >>> also need some help with punctuation.

    >>
    >>I asked about a book, not a site critique. And a bad one at that;
    >>if you wish to criticize, at least say what you are criticizing.

    >
    > You also brought up writing a book. That leads me to wonder if you
    > can write.
    >
    > What is not clear about "sightseeing" instead of "siteseeing"? The
    > punctuation errors are in sentences containing parenthetical clauses
    > or what should be parenthetical clauses.


    Nothing unclear about the error at all. But you said nothing about
    where the error is. I have two links in my sig which also lead to
    numerous other pages I have worked on or written myself. What page?
    Where on the page?

    >>I can
    >>only guess that you found some typos and puncuation problems
    >>somewhere on one (or more?) of the pages I have on my *personal*
    >>site for which I really don't spend a lot of time on details.

    >
    > When you post a linking URL in a newsgroup, your web site is no
    > longer private. You are inviting viewers by including the site in
    > your sig.


    I don't expect it to be private in that respect. I mean that my
    stanmccann.us site is put up mostly for family and friends to view. I
    don't spend the time to spellcheck, verify grammar, etc. on a page that
    is not meant to be a professional page. If you find those types of
    errors on the school site I work on, or one of the pages for the non-
    profits organizations I do, I'd be much interested in someone pointing
    out errors.

    > If you are considering writing a book, or co-authoring a book, your
    > attention to detail would be important. Most errors in writing html
    > are caused by missing details. I wouldn't want to buy a book that
    > teaches html written by someone who thinks that details are
    > unimportant or take a course from someone who thinks details are
    > unimportant.


    As I'm sure you know, humor, sarcasm, and such really doesn't come
    across very well in plain text. I really didn't think a smiley or wink
    was needed. The question about my writing a book was mostly off the
    cuff sarcastic humor. Oh well, it didn't come off as intended.

    > I'm sure you know the subject, but my advice to hook up with a good
    > Editor if you decide to write about the subject still stands.


    Actually, I'm not sure that I do know the subject well enough to write
    a book, thus the bit about a co-author. There are some really smart
    people on this group that I learn from all the time. I do not claim to
    be an expert; I make that clear to my students. I do claim to be a
    professional web developer because I get paid for it. I know enough to
    get by and I can pass on what knowledge I posess.

    Maybe you are like me that reads more than posts. I did not/do not
    recognize your name as one of the regulars that I have become familiar
    with and value their posts. Thus my response. I also still stand by
    my original suggestion to you that if you critique a site or page, be
    specific as to what and where the errors you speak of are. Just as you
    could not read my mind to tell that I was being somewhat sarcastic
    about writing a book, I cannot read your mind to find the exact
    locations of errors you speak of. I am a firm believer of
    *constructive* criticism and saw nothing constructive in your criticism
    of my work. Had there been some constructive suggestion, I would not
    have taken any offense to your criticism.

    I do appreciate the new post to which I am replying as you have at
    least explained your thoughts when responding to my post. I don't
    necessarily agree with you as I, and I'm sure others, can be very
    attentive to detail in one situation while not bothering in another.

    Now, with this post, I have revealed another one of my foibles that
    might not be very good for writing a book. I tend to go on and on
    and... :)

    --
    Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
    Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
    http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
    Those that understand binary and those that don't.
    Stan McCann, Oct 9, 2005
    #11
  12. Mark Parnell

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On 8 Oct 2005 21:18:22 -0700, Stan McCann <> wrote:

    >>>> Be sure and hook up with a good Editor. The word on your web site
    >>>> - siteseeing - may describe looking at sites on the web, but it's
    >>>> a day of "sightseeing" when you go around to see the sights. You
    >>>> also need some help with punctuation.
    >>>
    >>>I asked about a book, not a site critique. And a bad one at that;
    >>>if you wish to criticize, at least say what you are criticizing.

    >>
    >> You also brought up writing a book. That leads me to wonder if you
    >> can write.
    >>
    >> What is not clear about "sightseeing" instead of "siteseeing"? The
    >> punctuation errors are in sentences containing parenthetical clauses
    >> or what should be parenthetical clauses.

    >
    >Nothing unclear about the error at all. But you said nothing about
    >where the error is. I have two links in my sig which also lead to
    >numerous other pages I have worked on or written myself. What page?
    >Where on the page?


    I don't think it's appropriate in an html newsgroup to provide a
    full-blown blue pencil critique of the written text. The references
    to the errors should be enough to motivate you to find them and
    correct them if you are interested. If you're not interested in
    finding and correcting them, that's fine, too.

    The only links I followed are the link you use in your sig line and
    one hyperlink to one set of images to see how you chose to present
    images. The page linked in your sig line is a simple page - except
    for the number of hyperlinks - and it shouldn't be difficult for you
    to read it as others do.

    >Maybe you are like me that reads more than posts. I did not/do not
    >recognize your name as one of the regulars that I have become familiar
    >with and value their posts.


    I'm a regular in another newsgroup - oddly enough, on the subject of
    English usage - and only strolled into alt.html to ask a question. I
    muddle along in 4.01 and use it to put up images of the family so I
    can send links to the other family members from Illinois to Russia to
    Denmark.

    Fair's fair, so my latest site is
    http://home.earthlink.net/~tony_cooper213/bluehome.html and you are
    welcome to criticize my dodgy html. I used Adobe Photoshop7's Picture
    Gallery for the additional pictures, but I'm not happy with this
    format. It is quick and easy to do, though. Your Album format does
    the job better, but the reference to needing to know perl script
    scared me off.

    I probably won't hang around alt.html very long since the regulars
    here sneer at 4.01 and seem to get off on pointing and shouting at
    deprecated tags. They don't seem to understand that some of us are
    quite happy to use the simplest solution and don't see the need to
    learn to operate a 20 ton crane to lift a matchbox.
    Tony Cooper, Oct 9, 2005
    #12
  13. Mark Parnell

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Tony Cooper quothed:

    > I probably won't hang around alt.html very long since the regulars
    > here sneer at 4.01 and seem to get off on pointing and shouting at
    > deprecated tags.


    Well, it's a lot of fun.

    > They don't seem to understand that some of us are
    > quite happy to use the simplest solution and don't see the need to
    > learn to operate a 20 ton crane to lift a matchbox.


    "If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right."

    - My mother, circa 1960

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Oct 9, 2005
    #13
  14. Mark Parnell

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 23:26:00 -0700, Neredbojias
    <> wrote:

    >With neither quill nor qualm, Tony Cooper quothed:
    >
    >> I probably won't hang around alt.html very long since the regulars
    >> here sneer at 4.01 and seem to get off on pointing and shouting at
    >> deprecated tags.

    >
    >Well, it's a lot of fun.
    >
    >> They don't seem to understand that some of us are
    >> quite happy to use the simplest solution and don't see the need to
    >> learn to operate a 20 ton crane to lift a matchbox.

    >
    >"If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right."
    >
    >- My mother, circa 1960


    No argument from me on that score, but what is "right"? If the intent
    is to put up a single page with a couple of images, is placing the
    text and the images with CSS instead of 4.01 more "right"?

    If the intent is to put up a page that will be viewed by a dozen
    people for a month and then taken down, does it make it less "right"
    for the source to contain a tag that works now but might not work in a
    year or so?
    Tony Cooper, Oct 9, 2005
    #14
  15. Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 23:26:00 -0700, Neredbojias
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>With neither quill nor qualm, Tony Cooper quothed:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I probably won't hang around alt.html very long since the regulars
    >>>here sneer at 4.01 and seem to get off on pointing and shouting at
    >>>deprecated tags.

    >>
    >>Well, it's a lot of fun.
    >>
    >>
    >>>They don't seem to understand that some of us are
    >>>quite happy to use the simplest solution and don't see the need to
    >>>learn to operate a 20 ton crane to lift a matchbox.

    >>
    >>"If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right."
    >>
    >>- My mother, circa 1960

    >
    >
    > No argument from me on that score, but what is "right"? If the intent
    > is to put up a single page with a couple of images, is placing the
    > text and the images with CSS instead of 4.01 more "right"?


    I think you are mistaken here, 4.01 governs the structure and use CSS
    for the style, your precious attributes are deprecated. What you
    describe is pre-4.01, like 4.0 and 3.2.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 9, 2005
    #15
  16. Mark Parnell

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Tony Cooper quothed:

    > On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 23:26:00 -0700, Neredbojias
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >With neither quill nor qualm, Tony Cooper quothed:
    > >
    > >> I probably won't hang around alt.html very long since the regulars
    > >> here sneer at 4.01 and seem to get off on pointing and shouting at
    > >> deprecated tags.

    > >
    > >Well, it's a lot of fun.
    > >
    > >> They don't seem to understand that some of us are
    > >> quite happy to use the simplest solution and don't see the need to
    > >> learn to operate a 20 ton crane to lift a matchbox.

    > >
    > >"If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right."
    > >
    > >- My mother, circa 1960

    >
    > No argument from me on that score, but what is "right"? If the intent
    > is to put up a single page with a couple of images, is placing the
    > text and the images with CSS instead of 4.01 more "right"?
    >
    > If the intent is to put up a page that will be viewed by a dozen
    > people for a month and then taken down, does it make it less "right"
    > for the source to contain a tag that works now but might not work in a
    > year or so?


    I'd say as long as it validates in the parts of the validator that
    aren't broken themselves, you're flippin' the flapjacks proficiently

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Oct 9, 2005
    #16
  17. Mark Parnell

    Stan McCann Guest

    Tony Cooper <> wrote in
    news::

    > On 8 Oct 2005 21:18:22 -0700, Stan McCann <> wrote:
    >>Nothing unclear about the error at all. But you said nothing about
    >>where the error is. I have two links in my sig which also lead to
    >>numerous other pages I have worked on or written myself. What page?
    >> Where on the page?

    >
    > I don't think it's appropriate in an html newsgroup to provide a
    > full-blown blue pencil critique of the written text. The references
    > to the errors should be enough to motivate you to find them and
    > correct them if you are interested. If you're not interested in
    > finding and correcting them, that's fine, too.


    If it's not appropriate to give a full critique, then it is not
    appropriate to critique at all. I did, BTW, find the errors but being
    on that somewhat comical/satirical page, I simply don't care about a
    bit of poor grammar or punctuation. I will probably fix the spelling
    error sometime. For the content/purpose of that page, I'm not too
    concerned and in no particular hurry.

    >
    > The only links I followed are the link you use in your sig line and
    > one hyperlink to one set of images to see how you chose to present
    > images. The page linked in your sig line is a simple page - except
    > for the number of hyperlinks - and it shouldn't be difficult for you


    ??? "number of hyperlinks" ???

    > to read it as others do.
    >
    >>Maybe you are like me that reads more than posts. I did not/do not
    >>recognize your name as one of the regulars that I have become
    >>familiar with and value their posts.

    >
    > I'm a regular in another newsgroup - oddly enough, on the subject of
    > English usage - and only strolled into alt.html to ask a question.
    > I


    Ahah, a student of English commenting on English usage in an HTML
    group.

    > muddle along in 4.01 and use it to put up images of the family so I
    > can send links to the other family members from Illinois to Russia
    > to Denmark.
    >
    > Fair's fair, so my latest site is
    > http://home.earthlink.net/~tony_cooper213/bluehome.html and you are
    > welcome to criticize my dodgy html. I used Adobe Photoshop7's
    > Picture Gallery for the additional pictures, but I'm not happy with
    > this


    I wouldn't bother to critique it. It is total trash (code) IMO. As I
    said in an earlier post (the one in which you critiqued my English?),
    Transition is long past. HTML 4.0 has been superseded by HTML 4.01
    way back in 1998. I see no CSS which is today's standard.

    Please don't take offense. I was just giving an example of how I saw
    your critique of my English. You mentioned some rules I violated
    without being specific. For instance, an example of a proper critique
    of your page would be: Your text "WEEKEND AT BLUE SPRINGS" appears to
    be a header. An <hx> would be more appropriate.

    > format. It is quick and easy to do, though. Your Album format does
    > the job better, but the reference to needing to know perl script
    > scared me off.


    You don't need to know Perl thoroughly. If you would like to use it,
    email me and I can help you with it.

    > I probably won't hang around alt.html very long since the regulars
    > here sneer at 4.01 and seem to get off on pointing and shouting at
    > deprecated tags. They don't seem to understand that some of us are
    > quite happy to use the simplest solution and don't see the need to
    > learn to operate a 20 ton crane to lift a matchbox.


    They (we?) don't so much sneer at 4.01 as that is the latest
    recommendation of HTML. Most of the regulars here promote proper
    usage, just as you did with my English. HTML 4.01 strict should be
    used today for a number of reasons that you would learn if you were to
    stick around.

    There are some that would tell you to forget HTML 4.01 and go with
    XHTML 1.1 as it supercedes HTML 4.01. I've seen many pros and cons on
    this issue and I prefer to stay with HTML, at least now, I have no use
    for XML (don't know it either).

    Just a side note. I find it interesting that you also have family in
    Russia as my son-in-law is Russian.

    --
    Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
    Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
    http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
    Those that understand binary and those that don't.
    Stan McCann, Oct 10, 2005
    #17
  18. Mark Parnell

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On 9 Oct 2005 16:13:04 -0700, Stan McCann <> wrote:

    >Tony Cooper <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >>>Maybe you are like me that reads more than posts. I did not/do not
    >>>recognize your name as one of the regulars that I have become
    >>>familiar with and value their posts.

    >>
    >> I'm a regular in another newsgroup - oddly enough, on the subject of
    >> English usage - and only strolled into alt.html to ask a question.
    >> I

    >
    >Ahah, a student of English commenting on English usage in an HTML
    >group.


    The reason html exists is to present the written word to a wider
    audience. To give more to concern to the function of how the words
    are presented than to the words presented seems a bit assbackwards to
    me. First you get the words right, then you figure out how to best
    present them.

    >> muddle along in 4.01 and use it to put up images of the family so I
    >> can send links to the other family members from Illinois to Russia
    >> to Denmark.
    >>
    >> Fair's fair, so my latest site is
    >> http://home.earthlink.net/~tony_cooper213/bluehome.html and you are
    >> welcome to criticize my dodgy html. I used Adobe Photoshop7's
    >> Picture Gallery for the additional pictures, but I'm not happy with
    >> this

    >
    >I wouldn't bother to critique it. It is total trash (code) IMO.


    S'fine with me. It's not that I don't respect doing things right, but
    the site is up, the site is viewable by those who I want to view it,
    the site accomplishes what I want it to accomplish, and the site took
    about five minutes from start to finish to create. That's the site
    part, and not the taking and processing of the images, of course.

    > As I
    >said in an earlier post (the one in which you critiqued my English?),
    >Transition is long past. HTML 4.0 has been superseded by HTML 4.01
    >way back in 1998. I see no CSS which is today's standard.


    But you saw the site. Did it open when you clicked the link? Did it
    make any difference at all when you opened the site that today's
    standard wasn't used? Wasn't the text there where the text was
    supposed to be, and the images there where I had chosen to put them?
    Did you know it wasn't made using today's standards before you looked
    at the source?

    You can make the point that the page design could be improved, but
    without any desire on my part to do something different with the
    design, what difference did it make to present the format I used in
    the way that I presented it?

    Assuming that I didn't want to do anything with the page that wasn't
    done, how would using CSS mattered?

    In my view, when I reach a point where I can't do what I want to do
    using the code (is that the word?) that I now use, that's the time to
    start using something new. However, if I want to continue to do what
    I've done in the link I provided, then what I'm doing is sufficient.

    >Please don't take offense. I was just giving an example of how I saw
    >your critique of my English. You mentioned some rules I violated
    >without being specific. For instance, an example of a proper critique
    >of your page would be: Your text "WEEKEND AT BLUE SPRINGS" appears to
    >be a header. An <hx> would be more appropriate.


    Why? The text line is exactly where I wanted the text line to be, in
    the font size and style I wanted it to be, and had the emphasis that I
    wanted it to have. How would a more appropriate way to place the text
    line improve anything?

    >They (we?) don't so much sneer at 4.01 as that is the latest
    >recommendation of HTML. Most of the regulars here promote proper
    >usage, just as you did with my English.


    I don't see it as the same thing at all. Spelling, punctuation, and
    sentence structure are all immediately discernable to the page's
    viewer. Whether is it brought to view by utilizing old means or by
    new means is immaterial. No matter how you code it, a misspelled word
    shows up on site. No coding will correct it.

    >Just a side note. I find it interesting that you also have family in
    >Russia as my son-in-law is Russian.


    My daughter-in-law is Russian. She's a resident alien with her "green
    card" (which is no longer green). Her parents are visiting here now.
    Let me tell you, it's interesting spending a few evenings with two
    people who do not speak a word of English when you don't speak a word
    of Russian.
    Tony Cooper, Oct 10, 2005
    #18
  19. Mark Parnell

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:37:33 GMT, "Jonathan N. Little"
    <> wrote:

    >Tony Cooper wrote:
    >> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 23:26:00 -0700, Neredbojias
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>With neither quill nor qualm, Tony Cooper quothed:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I probably won't hang around alt.html very long since the regulars
    >>>>here sneer at 4.01 and seem to get off on pointing and shouting at
    >>>>deprecated tags.
    >>>
    >>>Well, it's a lot of fun.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>They don't seem to understand that some of us are
    >>>>quite happy to use the simplest solution and don't see the need to
    >>>>learn to operate a 20 ton crane to lift a matchbox.
    >>>
    >>>"If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right."
    >>>
    >>>- My mother, circa 1960

    >>
    >>
    >> No argument from me on that score, but what is "right"? If the intent
    >> is to put up a single page with a couple of images, is placing the
    >> text and the images with CSS instead of 4.01 more "right"?

    >
    >I think you are mistaken here, 4.01 governs the structure and use CSS
    >for the style, your precious attributes are deprecated. What you
    >describe is pre-4.01, like 4.0 and 3.2.


    You could very well be right. The one book that I have on html is
    titled "HTML 4.01 Weekend Crash Course", and what I do is based on
    that book. I assumed that the information in the book is all 4.01.
    If it's not, I wouldn't know the difference.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "your precious attributes are
    deprecated".
    Tony Cooper, Oct 10, 2005
    #19
  20. Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:37:33 GMT, "Jonathan N. Little"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 23:26:00 -0700, Neredbojias
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>With neither quill nor qualm, Tony Cooper quothed:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>I probably won't hang around alt.html very long since the regulars
    >>>>>here sneer at 4.01 and seem to get off on pointing and shouting at
    >>>>>deprecated tags.
    >>>>
    >>>>Well, it's a lot of fun.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>They don't seem to understand that some of us are
    >>>>>quite happy to use the simplest solution and don't see the need to
    >>>>>learn to operate a 20 ton crane to lift a matchbox.
    >>>>
    >>>>"If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right."
    >>>>
    >>>>- My mother, circa 1960
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>No argument from me on that score, but what is "right"? If the intent
    >>>is to put up a single page with a couple of images, is placing the
    >>>text and the images with CSS instead of 4.01 more "right"?

    >>
    >>I think you are mistaken here, 4.01 governs the structure and use CSS
    >>for the style, your precious attributes are deprecated. What you
    >>describe is pre-4.01, like 4.0 and 3.2.

    >
    >
    > You could very well be right. The one book that I have on html is
    > titled "HTML 4.01 Weekend Crash Course", and what I do is based on
    > that book. I assumed that the information in the book is all 4.01.
    > If it's not, I wouldn't know the difference.
    >
    > I'm not sure what you mean by "your precious attributes are
    > deprecated".


    It sounds like 'HTML 4.01 Weekend Crash Course' wasn't worth whatever
    you paid for it. Deprecated are legacy or proprietary elements or
    attributes ear-marked for phasing out and their uses is discouraged. If
    you use 4.01 strict doctype your code will not validate. A good place to
    start:

    Index of the HTML 4 Elements
    http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/elements.html

    This list may also help:

    Deprecated HTML tags and alternatives
    http://www.codehelp.co.uk/html/deprecated.html




    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 10, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Larry
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    3,803
    Michelle Hlaing
    Nov 30, 2004
  2. George W. Cherry
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,348
    Chris Uppal
    Oct 29, 2004
  3. James Davis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
    James Davis
    Sep 2, 2004
  4. Fiber Optic
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    504
    Fiber Optic
    Mar 29, 2005
  5. Christopher Benson-Manica

    Textbook

    Christopher Benson-Manica, Sep 12, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    464
    Josh Sebastian
    Sep 12, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page