Newbie wants advice on writing correct HTML

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Ed, Dec 28, 2004.

  1. Ed

    Ed Guest

    It's many, many years since I wrote anything in HTML, so in effect I am
    a totally new user who wants to write and publish a small website for
    family/friends to use. It is not really intended for general public
    consumption.

    I have sketched out on paper a plan of the content of the website and
    the links between the various pages. But what tools should I use to
    write the necessary code?

    I had intended to just use HTML 4.0 with some javascript to plug some
    gaps. But then I read on this site that frames are best avoided - and I
    was going to use them extensively in my website! Iframes don't seem to
    be thought of as a really good alternative. The use of tables too seems
    to come in for some criticism unless they are used for absolutely pure
    data reasons. And the use of javascript seems to only get a lukewarm
    reception. And even some familiar tags like <center></center> are
    outdated I think?

    I'd like to start coding up to a good standard. Further reading here,
    seems to suggest that I could produce a good basic website, usable
    within Firefox and IE, by coding in XHTML along with CSS and some
    javascript where necessary. I'm not familiar (too old I guess) with
    other things like SSI, CGI, ASP, DHTML/Layers, XML etc..

    I would like to try to adhere to correct standards from the off and
    would welcome any comments as to if XHTML and CSS are the best tools to
    begin with? And is there a definitive site which describes these?


    Ed
    Ed, Dec 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ed

    Neal Guest

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:04:58 +0000, Ed <ex@directory> wrote:

    > It's many, many years since I wrote anything in HTML, so in effect I am
    > a totally new user who wants to write and publish a small website for
    > family/friends to use. It is not really intended for general public
    > consumption.


    Still, it's best to do it from a standards-base. Who knows what the
    eventual IE release will do with code? Who knows what new nifty browser
    will be the most common one 5 years from now?

    > I have sketched out on paper a plan of the content of the website and
    > the links between the various pages. But what tools should I use to
    > write the necessary code?
    >
    > I had intended to just use HTML 4.0 with some javascript to plug some
    > gaps. But then I read on this site that frames are best avoided - and I
    > was going to use them extensively in my website! Iframes don't seem to
    > be thought of as a really good alternative. The use of tables too seems
    > to come in for some criticism unless they are used for absolutely pure
    > data reasons. And the use of javascript seems to only get a lukewarm
    > reception. And even some familiar tags like <center></center> are
    > outdated I think?


    Mmm-hmm. I pretty much agree with what you've described above.

    I write a bare-bones no-nonsense plain vanilla HTML 4.01 Strict page
    first. Main tools are fingers and Crimson Editor (a great multi-purpose
    text editor). I use the HTML totally semantically (all headings are hx
    elements, etc.). If there's a place where I might use a pic, I either use
    text in its place if appropriate, or I leave it alone. Finally I have a
    totaly unstyled HTML Strict page which works for anyone.

    Then I add images - if there's text I've used in its place, that text
    becomes an alt value, if no text then alt="". All color, style, etc. are
    added in CSS. Finally, I add div elements to the markup as is sensible and
    position the page elements in the CSS.

    Lastly, any Javascript effects are added, but the page has to work without
    them. (Probably 85% of what used to be done in Javascript can be done in a
    better way or is best not done IMO.) If I have PHP available on the server
    some things are done in that.

    Now, frames are bad, but you can still have a section appear on every page
    using simple PHP. Here's what I do.

    1) As above, design the page, get the positioning done, etc.

    2) Cut the stuff from the HTML code which will appear on every page.
    Replace that with a PHP rewuire or include statement and save the document
    as a .php file.

    3) Create a txt file and paste that code in it, named to match the URL in
    the include.

    > I'd like to start coding up to a good standard. Further reading here,
    > seems to suggest that I could produce a good basic website, usable
    > within Firefox and IE, by coding in XHTML along with CSS and some
    > javascript where necessary. I'm not familiar (too old I guess) with
    > other things like SSI, CGI, ASP, DHTML/Layers, XML etc..
    >
    > I would like to try to adhere to correct standards from the off and
    > would welcome any comments as to if XHTML and CSS are the best tools to
    > begin with? And is there a definitive site which describes these?


    XHTML - time has not come IMO. Time may never come. IE won't deal with it
    unless we serve it the same as HTML, so no benefit found.

    That said, if you can ignore everything pertinent to XHTML and replace it
    mentally with HTML, http://www.htmldog.com is a great site for you. I
    really don't think the XHTML emphasis there is appropriate, but the CSS,
    non-XHTML-specific HTML advice, and the general approach to web authoring
    is right on the money.

    http://www.w3schools.com gets suggested a lot too. I think it's good, but
    a little too fast with content for a tutorial.
    Neal, Dec 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ed

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Neal wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:04:58 +0000, Ed <ex@directory> wrote:
    >
    >> It's many, many years since I wrote anything in HTML, so in effect I
    >> am a totally new user who wants to write and publish a small website
    >> for family/friends to use. It is not really intended for general
    >> public consumption.

    >
    >
    > Still, it's best to do it from a standards-base. Who knows what the
    > eventual IE release will do with code? Who knows what new nifty browser
    > will be the most common one 5 years from now?
    >
    >> I have sketched out on paper a plan of the content of the website and
    >> the links between the various pages. But what tools should I use to
    >> write the necessary code?
    >>
    >> I had intended to just use HTML 4.0 with some javascript to plug some
    >> gaps. But then I read on this site that frames are best avoided - and
    >> I was going to use them extensively in my website! Iframes don't seem
    >> to be thought of as a really good alternative. The use of tables too
    >> seems to come in for some criticism unless they are used for
    >> absolutely pure data reasons. And the use of javascript seems to only
    >> get a lukewarm reception. And even some familiar tags like
    >> <center></center> are outdated I think?

    >
    >
    > Mmm-hmm. I pretty much agree with what you've described above.
    >
    > I write a bare-bones no-nonsense plain vanilla HTML 4.01 Strict page
    > first. Main tools are fingers and Crimson Editor (a great multi-purpose
    > text editor). I use the HTML totally semantically (all headings are hx
    > elements, etc.). If there's a place where I might use a pic, I either
    > use text in its place if appropriate, or I leave it alone. Finally I
    > have a totaly unstyled HTML Strict page which works for anyone.
    >
    > Then I add images - if there's text I've used in its place, that text
    > becomes an alt value, if no text then alt="". All color, style, etc. are
    > added in CSS. Finally, I add div elements to the markup as is sensible
    > and position the page elements in the CSS.
    >
    > Lastly, any Javascript effects are added, but the page has to work
    > without them. (Probably 85% of what used to be done in Javascript can be
    > done in a better way or is best not done IMO.) If I have PHP available
    > on the server some things are done in that.
    >
    > Now, frames are bad, but you can still have a section appear on every
    > page using simple PHP. Here's what I do.
    >
    > 1) As above, design the page, get the positioning done, etc.
    >
    > 2) Cut the stuff from the HTML code which will appear on every page.
    > Replace that with a PHP rewuire or include statement and save the
    > document as a .php file.
    >
    > 3) Create a txt file and paste that code in it, named to match the URL
    > in the include.
    >
    >> I'd like to start coding up to a good standard. Further reading here,
    >> seems to suggest that I could produce a good basic website, usable
    >> within Firefox and IE, by coding in XHTML along with CSS and some
    >> javascript where necessary. I'm not familiar (too old I guess) with
    >> other things like SSI, CGI, ASP, DHTML/Layers, XML etc..
    >>
    >> I would like to try to adhere to correct standards from the off and
    >> would welcome any comments as to if XHTML and CSS are the best tools
    >> to begin with? And is there a definitive site which describes these?

    >
    >
    > XHTML - time has not come IMO. Time may never come. IE won't deal with
    > it unless we serve it the same as HTML, so no benefit found.
    >
    > That said, if you can ignore everything pertinent to XHTML and replace
    > it mentally with HTML, http://www.htmldog.com is a great site for you. I
    > really don't think the XHTML emphasis there is appropriate, but the CSS,
    > non-XHTML-specific HTML advice, and the general approach to web
    > authoring is right on the money.
    >
    > http://www.w3schools.com gets suggested a lot too. I think it's good,
    > but a little too fast with content for a tutorial.


    I disagree. Now is THE time to write XHTML. Dont wait until you HAVE to
    write it or it'll be panic-panic. Now is a good time to get into it,
    learn the structure and the "whys" and "hows". Simple pages will still
    work perfectly in older browsers, and you wont have to unlearn stuff
    when you do decide to move to XHTML later on.

    XHTML transitional is the place to start if you are a newbie. HTML4.01
    is long dead.

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
    SpaceGirl, Dec 28, 2004
    #3
  4. SpaceGirl wrote:

    > XHTML transitional is the place to start if you are a newbie.
    > HTML4.01 is long dead.


    <waves hand/>

    New documents should be Strict, not Transitional, whether they be
    XHTML or HTML.

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 28, 2004
    #4
  5. Ed

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    >> XHTML transitional is the place to start if you are a newbie.
    >> HTML4.01 is long dead.

    >
    >
    > <waves hand/>
    >
    > New documents should be Strict, not Transitional, whether they be XHTML
    > or HTML.
    >


    Okay, good point. But XHTML strict is VERY unforgiving, and IE hates it.
    Transitional is an easier learning curve.


    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
    SpaceGirl, Dec 28, 2004
    #5
  6. Ed

    Neal Guest

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:50:13 +0000, SpaceGirl
    <> wrote:

    > I disagree. Now is THE time to write XHTML. Dont wait until you HAVE to
    > write it or it'll be panic-panic. Now is a good time to get into it,
    > learn the structure and the "whys" and "hows". Simple pages will still
    > work perfectly in older browsers, and you wont have to unlearn stuff
    > when you do decide to move to XHTML later on.
    >
    > XHTML transitional is the place to start if you are a newbie. HTML4.01
    > is long dead.


    I'll race you. You turn your XHTML transitional document into XHTML 1.1,
    and I'll turn my HTML 4.01 Strict document into XHTML 1.1.

    Point: when I "need" it - and I doubt I ever will, but for the sake of
    argument - it'll take me no time at all to translate the files.
    Neal, Dec 28, 2004
    #6
  7. SpaceGirl wrote:
    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >
    >> SpaceGirl wrote:
    >>
    >>> XHTML transitional is the place to start if you are a newbie.
    >>> HTML4.01 is long dead.

    >>
    >> <waves hand/>
    >>
    >> New documents should be Strict, not Transitional, whether they be
    >> XHTML or HTML.

    >
    > Okay, good point. But XHTML strict is VERY unforgiving,


    ...for some value of unforgiving. Personally, I don't think there is
    much difference at all between HTML and XHTML Strict.

    > and IE hates it.


    Only if you serve it as application/xhtml+xml. If you cheat and use
    text/html, IE will/should work (though I'm not recommending it).

    http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

    > Transitional is an easier learning curve.


    Why start by learning old stuff? Transitional could be used when
    quickly converting legacy documents.

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 28, 2004
    #7
  8. On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:04:58 +0000, Ed <ex@directory> wrote:

    > It's many, many years since I wrote anything in HTML, so in effect I am a
    > totally new user who wants to write and publish a small website for
    > family/friends to use. It is not really intended for general public
    > consumption.


    That doesn't really matter, as it will be available to the general public if
    you publish on the www.

    > I have sketched out on paper a plan of the content of the website and the
    > links between the various pages. But what tools should I use to write the
    > necessary code?


    You can try to code by hand and use a editor that colors markup tags for
    example. For coding html I use Textpad available at <http://www.textpad.com/>
    and for CSS I use TopStyle Lite available at
    <http://www.bradsoft.com/download/index.asp>.
    If accessiblity and usablitily is no issue at all for you (you really intend
    all of the content to be displayed and available only to people you know,
    _AND_ you don't care for possible other visitors) you might want to try a
    WYSI(n)WYG editor. But only than.


    [on frames]

    Frames are generally not such a very good idea, because it is hard to code
    them correctly. That is to code them such that a visitor without frames
    capability still gets to the content s/he wants to. Read some on this frames
    discussion by looking at
    <http://www.google.com/search?q=%20your+browser+doesn't+support%20+frames>.

    [on center, HTML and CSS]

    Since you haven't done any html for some substential time, you best read up on
    what is currently available for HTML4.01 at <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/>
    and <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>. Don't let the amount of information scare
    you off.

    Writing with html isn't at all hard. Think 'semantic markup'. As you write
    your content think what it is (not what it should look like). Find the correct
    element in the specifications and recommandations and apply correct tags. Done.
    A paragraph is just that, a paragraph. A heading is just that. A table and an
    image are a table and an image. Don't make it more complicated that necessary.
    Styling is something you shouldn't worry about (at least not too much) while
    marking up your content.

    Once you have a HTML page, you can style it preferably with CSS2 in a separate
    style sheet. You can start at <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Style.html> and
    get further information at
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/cover.html>.
    Again, don't let the vast amount of information on this subject scare you off.
    CSS is more complicated than HTML (at least that is my experience with it),
    but it is manageble.

    If all this seems to be too much, and is really not necessary for your
    purposes (a small, personal website, intended for people you know), again, you
    could try to work with a tool that requires (seemingly) less knowledge, like a
    WYSI(n)WYG editor. Just remember that the code generated with such a tool will
    most likely not be compliant, not be very accessible and usable outside the
    browser situation that comes with Windows and Internet Explorer.
    Than again, it is as quick as it is dirty, and if your family and friends use
    only Windows and Internet Explorer, who cares?


    --
    ,------------- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: --------------.
    | weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html> |
    | webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html> |
    | zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html> |
    `---------------------------------------------------------------------------'
    Barbara de Zoete, Dec 28, 2004
    #8
  9. Ed

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Neal wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:50:13 +0000, SpaceGirl
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I disagree. Now is THE time to write XHTML. Dont wait until you HAVE
    >> to write it or it'll be panic-panic. Now is a good time to get into
    >> it, learn the structure and the "whys" and "hows". Simple pages will
    >> still work perfectly in older browsers, and you wont have to unlearn
    >> stuff when you do decide to move to XHTML later on.
    >>
    >> XHTML transitional is the place to start if you are a newbie. HTML4.01
    >> is long dead.

    >
    >
    > I'll race you. You turn your XHTML transitional document into XHTML 1.1,
    > and I'll turn my HTML 4.01 Strict document into XHTML 1.1.
    >
    > Point: when I "need" it - and I doubt I ever will, but for the sake of
    > argument - it'll take me no time at all to translate the files.


    .... and the point of that would be?

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
    SpaceGirl, Dec 28, 2004
    #9
  10. Ed

    Neal Guest

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:16:56 +0000, SpaceGirl
    <> wrote:

    >> Point: when I "need" it - and I doubt I ever will, but for the sake of
    >> argument - it'll take me no time at all to translate the files.

    >
    > ... and the point of that would be?


    .... no different than the point of using XHTML now. That is, pointless.
    Neal, Dec 28, 2004
    #10
  11. Ed

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Neal wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:16:56 +0000, SpaceGirl
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> Point: when I "need" it - and I doubt I ever will, but for the sake
    >>> of argument - it'll take me no time at all to translate the files.

    >>
    >>
    >> ... and the point of that would be?

    >
    >
    > ... no different than the point of using XHTML now. That is, pointless.
    >


    XHTML isn't pointless; it encourages "correct" markup. If you are going
    to learn, XHTML makes more sense simply because the structure makes more
    sense. HTML4.01 is far to loose, and teaches you right away to write
    messy markup.

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
    SpaceGirl, Dec 28, 2004
    #11
  12. SpaceGirl wrote:
    > Okay, good point. But XHTML strict is VERY unforgiving, and IE hates it.
    > Transitional is an easier learning curve.


    To quote you, "Dont wait until you HAVE to write it or it'll be
    panic-panic. Now is a good time to get into it, learn the structure and
    the 'whys' and 'hows'." That statement really applies to (X)HTML Strict
    better than it does to HTML: it would be relatively easy for a browser
    to implement both XHTML and HTML, but harder to implement presentational
    HTML; what makes you think that browsers will drop support for HTML in
    the foreseeable future?
    Leif K-Brooks, Dec 28, 2004
    #12
  13. Ed

    C A Upsdell Guest

    Ed wrote:
    > It's many, many years since I wrote anything in HTML, so in effect I am
    > a totally new user who wants to write and publish a small website for
    > family/friends to use. It is not really intended for general public
    > consumption.
    >
    > I have sketched out on paper a plan of the content of the website and
    > the links between the various pages. But what tools should I use to
    > write the necessary code?
    >
    > I had intended to just use HTML 4.0 with some javascript to plug some
    > gaps. But then I read on this site that frames are best avoided - and I
    > was going to use them extensively in my website! Iframes don't seem to
    > be thought of as a really good alternative. The use of tables too seems
    > to come in for some criticism unless they are used for absolutely pure
    > data reasons. And the use of javascript seems to only get a lukewarm
    > reception. And even some familiar tags like <center></center> are
    > outdated I think?
    >
    > I'd like to start coding up to a good standard. Further reading here,
    > seems to suggest that I could produce a good basic website, usable
    > within Firefox and IE, by coding in XHTML along with CSS and some
    > javascript where necessary. I'm not familiar (too old I guess) with
    > other things like SSI, CGI, ASP, DHTML/Layers, XML etc..
    >
    > I would like to try to adhere to correct standards from the off and
    > would welcome any comments as to if XHTML and CSS are the best tools to
    > begin with? And is there a definitive site which describes these?


    First, use a Strict DOCTYPE, either HTML 4.01 or xHTML 1.0, and validate
    your work frequently. This will enable you to quickly find out which
    HTML you should be using, and which you should not. Also, you will
    learn a lot by analyzing your mistakes.

    Second, use CSS exclusively for styling. Validate it too.

    Third, build once to throw away: build the site through a trial and
    error process, learning as you go along, until the site does what you
    want it to do. Then throw away your work and start again from scratch:
    by this time you will have learned a lot, and your second design willl
    be a lot cleaner than your first.
    C A Upsdell, Dec 28, 2004
    #13
  14. Ed

    Ed Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    >> XHTML transitional is the place to start if you are a newbie.
    >> HTML4.01 is long dead.

    >
    >
    > <waves hand/>
    >
    > New documents should be Strict, not Transitional, whether they be XHTML
    > or HTML.
    >


    It's happened, just as I feared. I asked for some help/advice in my
    original posting, hoping for a clear way forward, but the result seems
    to have generated a debate amongst yourselves about the pros/cons of
    various protocols etc.

    I really do want help from you guys. You know so much. But for me,
    tarting from the beginning with no legacy systems to worry about, would
    XHTML and CSS and a bit of javascript be a good basis on which to launch
    a website?

    So far, I am confused by all your replies to each other.

    I really don't know how to proceed now?

    Ed
    Ed, Dec 28, 2004
    #14
  15. Ed

    Ed Guest

    Barbara de Zoete wrote:
    > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:04:58 +0000, Ed <ex@directory> wrote:
    >
    >> It's many, many years since I wrote anything in HTML, so in effect I
    >> am a totally new user who wants to write and publish a small website
    >> for family/friends to use. It is not really intended for general
    >> public consumption.

    >
    >
    > That doesn't really matter, as it will be available to the general
    > public if you publish on the www.
    >
    >> I have sketched out on paper a plan of the content of the website and
    >> the links between the various pages. But what tools should I use to
    >> write the necessary code?

    >
    >
    > You can try to code by hand and use a editor that colors markup tags
    > for example. For coding html I use Textpad available at
    > <http://www.textpad.com/> and for CSS I use TopStyle Lite available at
    > <http://www.bradsoft.com/download/index.asp>.
    > If accessiblity and usablitily is no issue at all for you (you really
    > intend all of the content to be displayed and available only to people
    > you know, _AND_ you don't care for possible other visitors) you might
    > want to try a WYSI(n)WYG editor. But only than.
    >
    >
    > [on frames]
    >
    > Frames are generally not such a very good idea, because it is hard to
    > code them correctly. That is to code them such that a visitor without
    > frames capability still gets to the content s/he wants to. Read some on
    > this frames discussion by looking at
    > <http://www.google.com/search?q=%20your+browser+doesn't+support%20+frames>.
    >
    > [on center, HTML and CSS]
    >
    > Since you haven't done any html for some substential time, you best read
    > up on what is currently available for HTML4.01 at
    > <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/> and <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>.
    > Don't let the amount of information scare you off.
    >
    > Writing with html isn't at all hard. Think 'semantic markup'. As you
    > write your content think what it is (not what it should look like).
    > Find the correct element in the specifications and recommandations and
    > apply correct tags. Done.
    > A paragraph is just that, a paragraph. A heading is just that. A table
    > and an image are a table and an image. Don't make it more complicated
    > that necessary. Styling is something you shouldn't worry about (at
    > least not too much) while marking up your content.
    >
    > Once you have a HTML page, you can style it preferably with CSS2 in a
    > separate style sheet. You can start at
    > <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Style.html> and get further information
    > at <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/cover.html>.
    > Again, don't let the vast amount of information on this subject scare
    > you off. CSS is more complicated than HTML (at least that is my
    > experience with it), but it is manageble.
    >
    > If all this seems to be too much, and is really not necessary for your
    > purposes (a small, personal website, intended for people you know),
    > again, you could try to work with a tool that requires (seemingly) less
    > knowledge, like a WYSI(n)WYG editor. Just remember that the code
    > generated with such a tool will most likely not be compliant, not be
    > very accessible and usable outside the browser situation that comes
    > with Windows and Internet Explorer.
    > Than again, it is as quick as it is dirty, and if your family and
    > friends use only Windows and Internet Explorer, who cares?
    >
    >

    Thanks Barbara, that's really helpful.

    Ed
    Ed, Dec 28, 2004
    #15
  16. On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:33:40 +0000, Ed <ex@directory> wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> SpaceGirl wrote:
    >>
    >>> XHTML transitional is the place to start if you are a newbie.
    >>> HTML4.01 is long dead.

    >> <waves hand/>
    >> New documents should be Strict, not Transitional, whether they be XHTML or
    >> HTML.
    >>

    >
    > It's happened, just as I feared. I asked for some help/advice in my
    > original posting, hoping for a clear way forward, but the result seems to
    > have generated a debate amongst yourselves about the pros/cons of various
    > protocols etc.
    >
    > I really don't know how to proceed now?
    >


    Did you actually read Message-ID opsjpz1eszx5vgts@zoete_b [1]? What is it you
    mis to get you started? Where do you see the debate there?



    [1] or through Google if you don't know how to retrieve a single message by
    its ID:
    <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=opsjpz1eszx5vgts@zoete_b>


    --
    ,------------- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: --------------.
    | weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html> |
    | webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html> |
    | zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html> |
    `---------------------------------------------------------------------------'
    Barbara de Zoete, Dec 28, 2004
    #16
  17. Ed

    Karl Core Guest

    "Ed" <ex@directory> wrote in message
    news:41d1d13e$0$19164$...

    > It's happened, just as I feared. I asked for some help/advice in my
    > original posting, hoping for a clear way forward, but the result seems to
    > have generated a debate amongst yourselves about the pros/cons of various
    > protocols etc.
    >
    > I really do want help from you guys. You know so much. But for me,
    > tarting from the beginning with no legacy systems to worry about, would
    > XHTML and CSS and a bit of javascript be a good basis on which to launch a
    > website?
    >
    > So far, I am confused by all your replies to each other.
    >
    > I really don't know how to proceed now?


    You're a newbie. Start wherever you want.
    XHTML would seem to make sense, because (esp. if you write to the strict
    DTD) it will help you in the future.
    There's a lot to learn, and despite the way it sounds, none of us know it
    all. Start wherever you want and build from there.


    --
    -Karl Core
    Please Support "Project Boneyard":
    http://www.insurgence.net/info.aspx?action=band&item=boneyard
    Karl Core, Dec 28, 2004
    #17
  18. Ed

    Ed Guest

    C A Upsdell > wrote:
    > Ed wrote:
    >
    >> It's many, many years since I wrote anything in HTML, so in effect I
    >> am a totally new user who wants to write and publish a small website
    >> for family/friends to use. It is not really intended for general
    >> public consumption.
    >>
    >> I have sketched out on paper a plan of the content of the website and
    >> the links between the various pages. But what tools should I use to
    >> write the necessary code?
    >>
    >> I had intended to just use HTML 4.0 with some javascript to plug some
    >> gaps. But then I read on this site that frames are best avoided - and
    >> I was going to use them extensively in my website! Iframes don't seem
    >> to be thought of as a really good alternative. The use of tables too
    >> seems to come in for some criticism unless they are used for
    >> absolutely pure data reasons. And the use of javascript seems to only
    >> get a lukewarm reception. And even some familiar tags like
    >> <center></center> are outdated I think?
    >>
    >> I'd like to start coding up to a good standard. Further reading here,
    >> seems to suggest that I could produce a good basic website, usable
    >> within Firefox and IE, by coding in XHTML along with CSS and some
    >> javascript where necessary. I'm not familiar (too old I guess) with
    >> other things like SSI, CGI, ASP, DHTML/Layers, XML etc..
    >>
    >> I would like to try to adhere to correct standards from the off and
    >> would welcome any comments as to if XHTML and CSS are the best tools
    >> to begin with? And is there a definitive site which describes these?

    >
    >
    > First, use a Strict DOCTYPE, either HTML 4.01 or xHTML 1.0, and validate
    > your work frequently. This will enable you to quickly find out which
    > HTML you should be using, and which you should not. Also, you will
    > learn a lot by analyzing your mistakes.
    >
    > Second, use CSS exclusively for styling. Validate it too.
    >

    Is CSS used for something other than styling? I'm intrigued to learn
    more? And if so, why not used these extra possibilities?

    Ed
    Ed, Dec 28, 2004
    #18
  19. Ed

    Ed Guest

    Barbara de Zoete wrote:
    >
    > Did you actually read Message-ID opsjpz1eszx5vgts@zoete_b [1]? What is
    > it you mis to get you started? Where do you see the debate there?
    >
    >
    >
    > [1] or through Google if you don't know how to retrieve a single message
    > by its ID:
    > <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=opsjpz1eszx5vgts@zoete_b>
    >
    >


    Barbara, that's a really scary reply to a newbie. I have no idea what
    you are banging on about wrt a Message-ID.

    All I was looking for, was some plain guidance, and indeed you have
    helped me as I've indicated in my reply to you.

    But why do you guys cause us newbies to be so afraid of asking for help
    when you reply with so much gobble-de-gook.

    Good practice should always be explained in simple terms.

    Ed.
    Ed, Dec 28, 2004
    #19
  20. Ed

    C A Upsdell Guest

    Ed wrote:
    > C A Upsdell > wrote:
    >
    >> Ed wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's many, many years since I wrote anything in HTML, so in effect I
    >>> am a totally new user who wants to write and publish a small website
    >>> for family/friends to use. It is not really intended for general
    >>> public consumption.
    >>>
    >>> I have sketched out on paper a plan of the content of the website and
    >>> the links between the various pages. But what tools should I use to
    >>> write the necessary code?
    >>>
    >>> I had intended to just use HTML 4.0 with some javascript to plug some
    >>> gaps. But then I read on this site that frames are best avoided -
    >>> and I was going to use them extensively in my website! Iframes don't
    >>> seem to be thought of as a really good alternative. The use of
    >>> tables too seems to come in for some criticism unless they are used
    >>> for absolutely pure data reasons. And the use of javascript seems to
    >>> only get a lukewarm reception. And even some familiar tags like
    >>> <center></center> are outdated I think?
    >>>
    >>> I'd like to start coding up to a good standard. Further reading
    >>> here, seems to suggest that I could produce a good basic website,
    >>> usable within Firefox and IE, by coding in XHTML along with CSS and
    >>> some javascript where necessary. I'm not familiar (too old I guess)
    >>> with other things like SSI, CGI, ASP, DHTML/Layers, XML etc..
    >>>
    >>> I would like to try to adhere to correct standards from the off and
    >>> would welcome any comments as to if XHTML and CSS are the best tools
    >>> to begin with? And is there a definitive site which describes these?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> First, use a Strict DOCTYPE, either HTML 4.01 or xHTML 1.0, and
    >> validate your work frequently. This will enable you to quickly find
    >> out which HTML you should be using, and which you should not. Also,
    >> you will learn a lot by analyzing your mistakes.
    >>
    >> Second, use CSS exclusively for styling. Validate it too.
    >>

    > Is CSS used for something other than styling? I'm intrigued to learn
    > more? And if so, why not used these extra possibilities?


    Generally for controlling how the page. This includes styling, but also
    includes positioning, controlling layers, and other things. But you're
    best off with just using the styling features at first: one reason
    being that other things tend to be browser dependent, and poorly
    implemented by some browsers.
    C A Upsdell, Dec 28, 2004
    #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. Henk van den Berg

    newbie wants book tips on programming in C

    Henk van den Berg, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    568
    Emmanuel Delahaye
    Aug 5, 2003
  2. anthonyberet
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    421
    anthonyberet
    Feb 8, 2005
  3. Mark
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    445
    Stuart MacMartin
    Sep 7, 2005
  4. n00bie wants advice.

    , Jul 2, 2008, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    267
  5. Christoph Bergmann
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    111
    Richard Cornford
    Oct 27, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page