HTML textbook recommendations

[Mark Parnell]

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.

 

[Stan McCann]

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.

 

[Neredbojias]

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.

 

[Mark Parnell]

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. :-(

 

[Toby Inkster]

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.

 

[Jake]

In message

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.

 

[Tony Cooper]

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.

 

[Stan McCann]

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.

 

[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,

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

 

[Tony Cooper]

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.

 

[Stan McCann]

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?

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...

 

[Tony Cooper]

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.

 

[Neredbojias]

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

 

[Tony Cooper]

With neither quill nor qualm, Tony Cooper quothed:


Well, it's a lot of fun.


"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?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Tony Cooper quothed:

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

 

[Stan McCann]

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.


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

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.

 

[Tony Cooper]

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.

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]

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".

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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