NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"

Discussion in 'HTML' started by David Segall, Jan 7, 2009.

  1. David Segall

    David Segall Guest

    In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
    off-topic sub-thread and
    Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
    >html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
    >seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently majority
    >opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
    >just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
    >experience.

    It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.

    First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
    authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
    entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
    Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
    error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
    the underlying encoding.

    Second, I have not used Frontpage but I find Dreamweaver an excellent
    tutor. I can use it to generate a web page and examine the output or,
    more frequently, I can use its code completion and related
    documentation to learn HTML. I can't imagine a better way of
    "explaining" the C in CSS than the properties view in Dreamweaver.
    David Segall, Jan 7, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Segall wrote:
    > In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
    > off-topic sub-thread and
    > Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >> Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
    >> html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
    >> seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently majority
    >> opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
    >> just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
    >> experience.

    > It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.
    >
    > First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
    > authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
    > entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
    > Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
    > error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
    > the underlying encoding.


    Yeah! Like I'd like to hire a carpenter that doesn't know carpentry to
    built my house, or mechanic without training fix my car. If you think
    knowing your field isn't important in web design then obviously you
    haven't fixed one created by one of these "experts".


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Jan 7, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Segall wrote:
    > In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
    > off-topic sub-thread and
    > Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >> Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
    >> html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
    >> seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently majority
    >> opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
    >> just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
    >> experience.

    > It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.
    >
    > First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
    > authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
    > entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
    > Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
    > error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
    > the underlying encoding.


    Microsoft Word documents are born in Microsoft Word, stored by Microsoft
    Word, and displayed by Microsoft Word. When you do such-and-such in your
    document, the result will display in Microsoft Word the way Microsoft
    Word was designed to display it, which was closely orchestrated by
    Microsoft to correspond to the kinds of edits you performed. If there's
    something wrong with the way a document displays, the fix can be stated
    completely in terms of your use of Microsoft Word without accessing any
    internal representations. If that isn't so, then it's a bug in Word and
    Microsoft is at fault.

    A browser displays a document that was created using heaven knows what
    application using heaven knows what menus and tools and instructions
    sets and intermediary representations in memory and in storage. If
    there's something wrong with the way a document displays, then unless
    it's a matter of a browser bug with no work-around, the problem can only
    be said to lie in the HTML, which is the only input the browser knows
    about. The only way to troubleshoot and fix it is by reference to the
    HTML. If you don't understand the HTML and don't know what it looks
    like, you're out of luck. Saying, "well, that's what Dreamweaver
    produced" or "there isn't any way to fix that in Dreamweaver" isn't a
    valid excuse. The browser doesn't read Dreamweaver.
    Harlan Messinger, Jan 7, 2009
    #3
  4. Re: NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'FirefoxVersion'!"

    On Jan 7, 1:55 pm, Harlan Messinger
    <> wrote:
    > David Segall wrote:
    > > In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
    > > off-topic sub-thread and
    > > Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > >> Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
    > >> html-kick updating my site.  Not that I'm so good, but what used to
    > >> seem impossible now seems trivial.  I do endorse the evidently majority
    > >> opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
    > >> just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
    > >> experience.

    > > It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.

    >
    > > First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
    > > authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
    > > entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
    > > Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
    > > error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
    > > the underlying encoding.

    >
    > Microsoft Word documents are born in Microsoft Word, stored by Microsoft
    > Word, and displayed by Microsoft Word. When you do such-and-such in your
    > document, the result will display in Microsoft Word the way Microsoft
    > Word was designed to display it, which was closely orchestrated by
    > Microsoft to correspond to the kinds of edits you performed. If there's
    > something wrong with the way a document displays, the fix can be stated
    > completely in terms of your use of Microsoft Word without accessing any
    > internal representations. If that isn't so, then it's a bug in Word and
    > Microsoft is at fault.
    >
    > A browser displays a document that was created using heaven knows what
    > application using heaven knows what menus and tools and instructions
    > sets and intermediary representations in memory and in storage. If
    > there's something wrong with the way a document displays, then unless
    > it's a matter of a browser bug with no work-around, the problem can only
    > be said to lie in the HTML, which is the only input the browser knows
    > about. The only way to troubleshoot and fix it is by reference to the
    > HTML. If you don't understand the HTML and don't know what it looks
    > like, you're out of luck. Saying, "well, that's what Dreamweaver
    > produced" or "there isn't any way to fix that in Dreamweaver" isn't a
    > valid excuse. The browser doesn't read Dreamweaver.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    One only has to read a few of the threads in the FrontPage forum to
    realize how futile it is to try and create a web site solely with a
    third party program. Most of the questions relate to problems using
    FrontPage instead of learning to understand HTML and CSS.
    Helpful person, Jan 7, 2009
    #4
  5. David Segall

    dorayme Guest

    In article <c421$4964e8f3$40cba7c5$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > David Segall wrote:

    ....
    > > First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
    > > authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
    > > entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
    > > Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
    > > error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
    > > the underlying encoding.

    >
    > Yeah! Like I'd like to hire a carpenter that doesn't know carpentry to
    > built my house, or mechanic without training fix my car. If you think
    > knowing your field isn't important in web design then obviously you
    > haven't fixed one created by one of these "experts".


    There are what are called scope tuners for pianos. That is, people who
    tune pianos by means of an electronic instrument. They mostly do not
    understand their field like real piano tuners and do not do as good a
    job generally. The reasons are not hard to fathom.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jan 7, 2009
    #5
  6. David Segall

    asdf Guest

    "Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > Harlan Messinger wrote:
    >>
    >>David Segall wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
    >>> authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
    >>> entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
    >>> Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
    >>> error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
    >>> the underlying encoding.

    >>
    >>Microsoft Word documents are born in Microsoft Word, stored by Microsoft
    >>Word, and displayed by Microsoft Word. When you do such-and-such in your
    >>document, the result will display in Microsoft Word the way Microsoft
    >>Word was designed to display it, which was closely orchestrated by
    >>Microsoft to correspond to the kinds of edits you performed. If there's
    >>something wrong with the way a document displays, the fix can be stated
    >>completely in terms of your use of Microsoft Word without accessing any
    >>internal representations. If that isn't so, then it's a bug in Word and
    >>Microsoft is at fault.
    >>
    >>A browser displays a document that was created using heaven knows what
    >>application using heaven knows what menus and tools and instructions
    >>sets and intermediary representations in memory and in storage. If
    >>there's something wrong with the way a document displays, then unless
    >>it's a matter of a browser bug with no work-around, the problem can only
    >>be said to lie in the HTML, which is the only input the browser knows
    >>about. The only way to troubleshoot and fix it is by reference to the
    >>HTML. If you don't understand the HTML and don't know what it looks
    >>like, you're out of luck. Saying, "well, that's what Dreamweaver
    >>produced" or "there isn't any way to fix that in Dreamweaver" isn't a
    >>valid excuse. The browser doesn't read Dreamweaver.

    >
    > I can create a "Microsoft Word" document in Sun StarOffice and send
    > it to someone who reads it using Kingsoft WPS Office. That doesn't
    > mean that I need to learn the internals of that format. Likewise, if
    > (note the "if") a tool exists that generates valid HTML, I don't need
    > to learn the internals of that format either.
    >


    ....but one of the differences between word format and (X)HTML is that the
    tools used to view (X)HTML, that is to say web browsers do not display the
    same results, or do not display some pages correctly EVEN if the markup is
    100% valid. You *still* need to tweak things by hand to accommodate the
    gammut of web browser bugs and associated work-arounds.

    The peekaboo bug in IE6 for instance that is the bane of the web developer's
    life still needs to be tested for and fixed every time, even if the markup
    is valid. Witness also the '3 pixel jog' bug. Ditto. I don't want to get
    into a browser flame war over this either... all the browsers have their
    strengths and weaknesses.

    Simply using a tool that produces 100% valid markup is still not a solution.

    While the web browser manufacturers continue to produce buggy rendering
    engines, and while older browsers are still being used, markup by hand is
    still the only solution, sadly.


    > (I code my HTML by hand using a text editor, but that's just me...)
    >
    >
    > --
    > Guy Macon
    > <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
    >
    asdf, Jan 7, 2009
    #6
  7. asdf wrote:

    > The peekaboo bug in IE6 for instance that is the bane of the web developer's
    > life still needs to be tested for and fixed every time, even if the markup
    > is valid. Witness also the '3 pixel jog' bug. Ditto. I don't want to get


    Hey just to let you know, it ain't just IE6, 7 has its own set of
    peekaboos that were not present in previous versions...When MS is not
    busy fixing old bugs then they're busy creating new ones!

    Here is one I discovered. If italic text, like EM touches a float--poof!
    The rest of the page disappears. IE7 only, works fine in V5-6

    http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/l2340/ver2.php

    My fix was to change the default style of EM to bold...

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Jan 8, 2009
    #7
  8. David Segall

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>, Ed Mullen <>
    wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:


    > > There are what are called scope tuners for pianos. That is, people who
    > > tune pianos by means of an electronic instrument. They mostly do not
    > > understand their field like real piano tuners and do not do as good a
    > > job generally. The reasons are not hard to fathom.
    > >

    >
    > I must disagree vehemently. If you have no knowledge of nor play (and,
    > hence, need to tune) a stringed instrument, you have provided no way to
    > explain what you mean. I /think/ I know what you mean but, then, I've
    > been playing and tuning guitar since 1966.
    >
    > Once upon a time I had a round chromatic pitch pipe (it's around here
    > somewhere). I would blow a concert A. I would tune the guitar's A
    > sting to that. Every other string would be tuned relative to that one
    > string.
    >
    > But! Depending upon the guitar, one needed also to then play a chord
    > and make minute adjustments.
    >


    Aha! So you are not your average ignorant, clueless, lowest musical
    tradesmen common denominator, the scope tuner I meant. (They charge less
    too!) <g>


    > Now I have a number of different types of electronic tuners. I can tune
    > (very precisely) each string to its base harmonic and ensure that each
    > string is precisely what it should be.
    >
    > And then? I strum a chord (or series of chords) and /listen/. Yeah,
    > yeah, my 58 1/2 year old ears may be not as acute as they were but I
    > /know/ what an open E, a barred F, an open G etc. should sound like.
    >
    > So, the electronic tools are great ... if you know how to use them.
    >
    > Perhaps that is what you were driving at?


    Well, you described, after your intention to be *vehement*, a pussycat
    opposition! You are like the DW user who *does* know wtf he is really
    doing.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jan 8, 2009
    #8
  9. David Segall

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > Aha! So you are not your average ignorant, clueless, lowest musical
    > tradesmen common denominator, the scope tuner I meant. (They charge less
    > too!) <g>


    And, maybe not so btw, the natural piano tuner is almost always faster,
    more efficient than a scope tuner who has to fiddle about...

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jan 8, 2009
    #9
  10. David Segall wrote:

    > In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a
    > really off-topic sub-thread and
    > Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >>Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
    >>html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used
    >>to seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the
    >>evidently majority opinion around here that using progs like
    >>Dreamweaver and Frontpage just rob one of the valuable and
    >>ultimately necessary learning experience.

    > It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.
    >
    > First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web
    > page authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML.
    > They are entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the
    > way Microsoft Word encodes a document. If there is a program
    > that generates error-free web pages there is no reason why they
    > should have to learn the underlying encoding.
    >
    > Second, I have not used Frontpage but I find Dreamweaver an
    > excellent tutor. I can use it to generate a web page and examine
    > the output or, more frequently, I can use its code completion
    > and related documentation to learn HTML. I can't imagine a
    > better way of "explaining" the C in CSS than the properties view
    > in Dreamweaver.


    It seems to me like a logical extension of this line of thinking
    would be: When someone comes into a/the group with a question,
    and he has created his code with...uh...when he has let, let's say
    Dreamweaver, create his code, the best way to help him would be to
    advise him that he can learn what he needs to know by just working
    on his issue more with, in this example, Dreamweaver. Because
    that's the "better way" of learning, and he can further avoid
    understanding the code that way.

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
    Blinky the Shark, Jan 8, 2009
    #10
  11. Guy Macon wrote:
    > Harlan Messinger wrote:
    >> David Segall wrote:
    >>
    >>> First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
    >>> authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
    >>> entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
    >>> Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
    >>> error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
    >>> the underlying encoding.

    >> Microsoft Word documents are born in Microsoft Word, stored by Microsoft
    >> Word, and displayed by Microsoft Word. When you do such-and-such in your
    >> document, the result will display in Microsoft Word the way Microsoft
    >> Word was designed to display it, which was closely orchestrated by
    >> Microsoft to correspond to the kinds of edits you performed. If there's
    >> something wrong with the way a document displays, the fix can be stated
    >> completely in terms of your use of Microsoft Word without accessing any
    >> internal representations. If that isn't so, then it's a bug in Word and
    >> Microsoft is at fault.
    >>
    >> A browser displays a document that was created using heaven knows what
    >> application using heaven knows what menus and tools and instructions
    >> sets and intermediary representations in memory and in storage. If
    >> there's something wrong with the way a document displays, then unless
    >> it's a matter of a browser bug with no work-around, the problem can only
    >> be said to lie in the HTML, which is the only input the browser knows
    >> about. The only way to troubleshoot and fix it is by reference to the
    >> HTML. If you don't understand the HTML and don't know what it looks
    >> like, you're out of luck. Saying, "well, that's what Dreamweaver
    >> produced" or "there isn't any way to fix that in Dreamweaver" isn't a
    >> valid excuse. The browser doesn't read Dreamweaver.

    >
    > I can create a "Microsoft Word" document in Sun StarOffice and send
    > it to someone who reads it using Kingsoft WPS Office. That doesn't
    > mean that I need to learn the internals of that format.


    The Word format wasn't designed to be cross-application, and there isn't
    any public standard or recommendation or specification for it to conform
    to so it does whatever Microsoft says it does. Therefore, anyone who
    creates a third-party app has to work real hard to get the app to
    display documents exactly as they're meant to be displayed. If they
    don't, there isn't *anything* you can do about it, right? You *can't* do
    anything about the underlying code; if you do, Microsoft Word might not
    even be able to open it. If your customer says, "These Word documents
    you designed for me don't work in XYZ Office", the justified answer is,
    "I can't be held responsible for that".

    Try that with a customer who complains that your web pages don't work in
    Firefox.

    > Likewise, if
    > (note the "if") a tool exists that generates valid HTML, I don't need
    > to learn the internals of that format either.
    >
    > (I code my HTML by hand using a text editor, but that's just me...)
    >
    >
    Harlan Messinger, Jan 8, 2009
    #11
  12. David Segall

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 07 Jan 2009, David Segall <> wrote:

    > In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
    > off-topic sub-thread and
    > Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >>Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
    >>html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
    >>seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently
    >>majority opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and
    >>Frontpage just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary
    >>learning experience.

    > It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.


    Well, I see your point, but I still maintain my opinion. The previous
    pro-learning replies to your message express my reasons better than I
    probably could.

    > First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
    > authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
    > entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
    > Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
    > error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
    > the underlying encoding.


    I think your analogy is not a good one because a word processor isn't
    really like an html parser. Any particular WP defines the rules of its
    operation while DW, Expression, etc., do not make the rules of html.
    Furthermore, no such programs are ever likely to be perfect.

    > Second, I have not used Frontpage but I find Dreamweaver an excellent
    > tutor. I can use it to generate a web page and examine the output or,
    > more frequently, I can use its code completion and related
    > documentation to learn HTML. I can't imagine a better way of
    > "explaining" the C in CSS than the properties view in Dreamweaver.


    Actually, I began learning html myself thru looking at the source of
    html mail in OE and then dabbled with Frontpage. Such exploits may be
    a decent way of starting out but they're not a substitute for the full
    and actual knowledge of the discipline.

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    The road to Heaven is paved with bad intentions.
    Neredbojias, Jan 8, 2009
    #12
  13. David Segall

    David Segall Guest

    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    >David Segall wrote:
    >> In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
    >> off-topic sub-thread and
    >> Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >>> Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
    >>> html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
    >>> seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently majority
    >>> opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
    >>> just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
    >>> experience.

    >> It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.
    >>
    >> First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
    >> authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
    >> entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
    >> Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
    >> error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
    >> the underlying encoding.

    >
    >Yeah! Like I'd like to hire a carpenter that doesn't know carpentry to
    >built my house, or mechanic without training fix my car. If you think
    >knowing your field isn't important in web design then obviously you
    >haven't fixed one created by one of these "experts".

    You are talking about technicians who are selling their services. I
    expect someone who is paid to design web pages to know the intricacies
    of HTML and CSS. The substantial minority I was talking about are
    setting up a personal web site or one for their church or club. The
    field of web design is huge and it is unreasonable to expect someone
    to learn it so that they can publish a page advertising the next
    meeting of the Woy Woy stamp collectors society.
    David Segall, Jan 8, 2009
    #13
  14. David Segall

    David Segall Guest

    Blinky the Shark <> wrote:

    >David Segall wrote:


    >> Second, I have not used Frontpage but I find Dreamweaver an
    >> excellent tutor. I can use it to generate a web page and examine
    >> the output or, more frequently, I can use its code completion
    >> and related documentation to learn HTML. I can't imagine a
    >> better way of "explaining" the C in CSS than the properties view
    >> in Dreamweaver.

    >
    >It seems to me like a logical extension of this line of thinking
    >would be: When someone comes into a/the group with a question,
    >and he has created his code with...uh...when he has let, let's say
    >Dreamweaver, create his code, the best way to help him would be to
    >advise him that he can learn what he needs to know by just working
    >on his issue more with, in this example, Dreamweaver. Because
    >that's the "better way" of learning, and he can further avoid
    >understanding the code that way.

    I don't think the "logical extension" of explaining something to
    someone who did not understand the first time is to say the same thing
    again only louder. I argued that using Dreamweaver is a good way to
    learn HTML. I did not argue that it was the only way and I have often
    needed further explanation including some from this group. For
    example, although Dreamweaver can tell you about variations between
    browsers that might affect your web page it cannot tell you how to
    avoid the problem.
    David Segall, Jan 8, 2009
    #14
  15. David Segall

    David Segall Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > David Segall <> wrote:
    >
    >> If there is a program that generates
    >> error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
    >> the underlying encoding.

    >
    >The problem is the "if" and also the exact meaning of your "error-free"

    True, but the problem remains even if you substitute "person" for
    "program" in my sentence.
    David Segall, Jan 8, 2009
    #15
  16. Guy Macon wrote:
    > Harlan Messinger wrote:
    >
    >> The Word format wasn't designed to be cross-application, and
    >> there isn't any public standard or recommendation or specification
    >> for it to conform to

    >
    > I suggest that you read this:
    > [ http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=51463 ]
    >

    Oh, you're talking about their XML format.

    In that case, I would say yes: if your client told you that documents
    weren't working in one of the applications that they reasonably expect
    to be able to use with your documents, then woe to you if the key is to
    fix the underlying code but you are unable to do so while thousands of
    your competitors can.
    Harlan Messinger, Jan 8, 2009
    #16
  17. Neredbojias wrote:

    > Actually, I began learning html myself thru looking at the source of
    > html mail in OE and then dabbled with Frontpage. Such exploits may be
    > a decent way of starting out but they're not a substitute for the full
    > and actual knowledge of the discipline.


    The way I actually started, but it had a major down-side where I later
    learned what poor examples my "mentors" had been. Much time was spent
    since to unlearn bad methods and relearn better ones. Far better to
    start out "right" from the start.



    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Jan 8, 2009
    #17
  18. David Segall wrote:

    > You are talking about technicians who are selling their services. I
    > expect someone who is paid to design web pages to know the intricacies
    > of HTML and CSS. The substantial minority I was talking about are
    > setting up a personal web site or one for their church or club. The
    > field of web design is huge and it is unreasonable to expect someone
    > to learn it so that they can publish a page advertising the next
    > meeting of the Woy Woy stamp collectors society.



    Basic HTML is not rocket science. CSS is altogether another story,
    especially since the browser used by the majority so poorly support it.

    So for armatures I would advise learning the basic knowledge of HTML and
    then use a prefab template. Or get someone knowledgeable to do it for
    you. Hey, same applies if you you are a Want-A-Be DIYer and want to
    build a deck. You must learn some basic carpentry first or hire a pro!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Jan 8, 2009
    #18
  19. David Segall

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    David Segall <> wrote:

    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>,
    > > David Segall <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> If there is a program that generates
    > >> error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
    > >> the underlying encoding.

    > >
    > >The problem is the "if" and also the exact meaning of your "error-free"

    > True, but the problem remains even if you substitute "person" for
    > "program" in my sentence.


    mmm... that's interesting. The problem here is the meaning of "the
    problem" in your last sentence.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jan 8, 2009
    #19
  20. David Segall

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 08 Jan 2009, "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >
    >> Actually, I began learning html myself thru looking at the source of
    >> html mail in OE and then dabbled with Frontpage. Such exploits may
    >> be a decent way of starting out but they're not a substitute for the
    >> full and actual knowledge of the discipline.

    >
    > The way I actually started, but it had a major down-side where I
    > later learned what poor examples my "mentors" had been. Much time was
    > spent since to unlearn bad methods and relearn better ones. Far
    > better to start out "right" from the start.


    Well, as soon as I started having problems with the code I glommed from
    OE and that which FP generated, I started digging into the more
    normalized resources of html like here and the W3C (specs). I didn't
    really have too many bad habits to unlearn except my overuse of
    javascript, but I see your point and the dangers it presents.

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    The road to Heaven is paved with bad intentions.
    Neredbojias, Jan 8, 2009
    #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. Roxanne
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,217
    Roxanne
    Jul 4, 2003
  2. Kristian Domke
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    493
    George Sakkis
    Jan 23, 2008
  3. David Segall
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,624
  4. Stephanie Stowe
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    198
    Peter X
    Apr 7, 2004
  5. Ruby Freak

    To be not, or not to be not?

    Ruby Freak, Sep 23, 2008, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    128
    Thomas B.
    Sep 23, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page