style for tags

T

Tony Cooper

In various books, and on various on-line tutorials, I see several
different ways of writing the same thing:

<width=250>
<width= 250> (space between = and 250)
<width="250">

I've used "width" as an example, but this is just an example.

I also see:

<width= 250 height= 100 font size= 6>
<width= 250 height= 100><font size= 6>

What can be included within one set of < >, and what should be broken
out into < > < >?
 
M

Michael Wilcox

Tony Cooper said:
What can be included within one set of < >, and what should be broken
out into < > < >?

Well, just to be clear, <width=60> on its own does nothing. Something like
<div width=60> does work, however. In that case, there should be no spaces
after or before the equals sign and the value of the attribute (width,
height, etc.) should be quoted: <div width="60" height="50">
 
T

Tony Cooper

Well, just to be clear, <width=60> on its own does nothing. Something like
<div width=60> does work, however. In that case, there should be no spaces
after or before the equals sign and the value of the attribute (width,
height, etc.) should be quoted: <div width="60" height="50">

The "div width" is not in my book. Cruising google, it seems that is
a CSS tag. So far, I've been able to do what I want in simple html
without going to CSS.

Can CSS tags and basic html tags be mixed?

Back to what I'm trying to figure out, though, is if there is a
difference between:

<width="60"><height="50">
and
<width="60 height="50">

In the above, it's just more keystrokes for the first. However, I'm
just trying to give a simple example.

By the way, I know I can try these to see on my own screen what works
and what doesn't. However, asking here usually gets the "why" answers
and not just the results. That's valuable.
 
T

Toby A Inkster

Michael said:
Well, just to be clear, <width=60> on its own does nothing. Something like
<div width=60> does work, however. In that case, there should be no spaces
after or before the equals sign and the value of the attribute (width,
height, etc.) should be quoted: <div width="60" height="50">

The value doesn't always *have* to be quoted. <div align=right> is valid
HTML for example. It is however good practice to quote all attributes as
it will make conversion to XHTML some point in the future more easy. It
may also speed up parsing the document for the browser.
 
M

Michael Wilcox

Tony Cooper said:
Can CSS tags and basic html tags be mixed?

CSS isn't tags, it's sort of a language. HTML is the structure of the
document made with tags: the headings, paragraphs, lists, tables, etc. CSS
adds the look-and-feel to the structure: colors, heights, widths, etc. If
the CSS is taken away, the structure and logical order of the document
reamins.
Back to what I'm trying to figure out, though, is if there is a
difference between:

<width="60"><height="50">
and
<width="60 height="50">

What do you expect these to do? Nothing will happen if those tags are in an
HTML document. "width" and "height" are both valid attributes only if used
with an element. Can you be specific about what you are specifying the width
and height of?
By the way, I know I can try these to see on my own screen what works
and what doesn't. However, asking here usually gets the "why" answers
and not just the results. That's valuable.

I agree in the value of the reasons behind things, which is why I'm asking
all these questions.
 
M

Michael Wilcox

Tony Cooper said:
Back to what I'm trying to figure out, though, is if there is a
difference between:

<width="60"><height="50">
and
<width="60 height="50">

I'm sorry, I was working under the imprression that you were new to HTML. To
use and example from one of your other posts: <th height= 50> should become
<th height="50"> (no space, quoted numbers). However, before you start to
depend on attributes like height for things in you document, learn CSS (it's
easy) and use that for formatting instead.
 
T

Tony Cooper

CSS isn't tags, it's sort of a language. HTML is the structure of the
document made with tags: the headings, paragraphs, lists, tables, etc. CSS
adds the look-and-feel to the structure: colors, heights, widths, etc. If
the CSS is taken away, the structure and logical order of the document
reamins.

I know enough that CSS means cascading style sheets, but the question
here is can said:
What do you expect these to do? Nothing will happen if those tags are in an
HTML document. "width" and "height" are both valid attributes only if used
with an element. Can you be specific about what you are specifying the width
and height of?

Sorry...I'm too close to the problem and assume others see what I see.
These tags will be in a table and used to determine the size of the
table data box. I never use a width in pixels, but rather use a width
in percentage if I need to control the width. I just used the number
as an example for the basic question.

Generally, they will be in the table data of an image. I normally
crop the image in Photoshop7 to the size I want it and don't bother
controlling size by html, but there are times I might.

I do use <th "height="x"> to set the size of the header table area.
Sometimes I'll use it in a table text area just to give white space
around the text. Since I try to set up one style as a template, it's
easier than a lot of <br>s or padding.

In another posting, I've asked about where to set the width of the
entire table (by percent) so it can be viewed on all monitor settings.

If you want to see an example of one of the ads I've done, see:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2555283241
I'm always trying to improve the appearance, and working on some
changes now.

Thanks for your help.
 
T

Tony Cooper

I'm sorry, I was working under the imprression that you were new to HTML. To
use and example from one of your other posts: <th height= 50> should become
<th height="50"> (no space, quoted numbers). However, before you start to
depend on attributes like height for things in you document, learn CSS (it's
easy) and use that for formatting instead.

That was a pretty good assumption. I'm new in that I only started
using html a few months ago, I've never done anything in html except
eBay ads, and that I try to keep things as absolutely simple as
possible. I probably average around 50 lines of html per ad, and
that's only because I tend to put things on separate lines that could
be on one line. That works better when setting up a template that is
revised in part each time.

eBay ads stay up for 7 days, and then disappear forever, In my niche,
I'm lucky to get 75 viewers over the life of the ad.

I've resisted learning CSS (although I bought a book on it that I've
never cracked) because I've heard that it doesn't work right for all
viewers. When an ad only reaches 75 people, a garbled ad for 7 of
them can be a real problem.
 
M

Michael Wilcox

Tony Cooper said:
I've resisted learning CSS (although I bought a book on it that I've
never cracked) because I've heard that it doesn't work right for all
viewers. When an ad only reaches 75 people, a garbled ad for 7 of
them can be a real problem.

A "garbled" ad won't exist if you use CSS and HTML properly. Something
like...

<div id="advert">
<span id="adhead">Heading Text</span><br>
<img src="adimg.png" alt="Buy a new boat!" height="70" width="200">
</div>

....would look just fine on an older/text/aural browser, and can look great
on a visual browser by placing the following in the document's head:

<style type="text/css">
#advert
{
width: 200px;
background-color: #66CCCC;
font-family: arial, helvetica, san-serif;
text-align: center;
padding: 5px;
}

#adhead
{
font-weight: bold;
font-size-increase: 120%;
}
</style>
 
E

Eric B. Bednarz

Michael Wilcox said:
[...] <th height= 50> should become
<th height="50"> (no space, quoted numbers).

In terms of ad hoc implementations, yes, every voodoo spell certainly
helps web wowsers to successfully process document instances bug by bug.

It doesn't hurt, however, to realize that there *is* a difference
between a *standard* -- the HTML syntax is supposed to be based upon one
-- and an 'industry standard' -- 'industry' meaning that there ar no
bugs to be solved, only 'good practice recommendations' to be resolved,
and 'standard' meaning habituation is the goal rather than the
consequence. So:

In terms of syntax, no, neither of the arguments in parentheses is
mandatory in this case.

For details, see

- attribute specification
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SGML/productions.html#prod32>

which states where space

<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SGML/productions.html#prod5>

is suitable, and

<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SGML/productions.html#prod35>

vs.

<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SGML/productions.html#prod34>

for the verbose explanation of /attribute value/ and /attribute value
literal/. The practical implications are probably easier understood by
consulting

<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.2.2>
 
T

Toby A Inkster

Michael said:
A "garbled" ad won't exist if you use CSS and HTML properly. Something
like...

<div id="advert">
<span id="adhead">Heading Text</span><br>
<img src="adimg.png" alt="Buy a new boat!" height="70" width="200">
</div>

.... is total crap. Why claim to be demonstrating HTML and CSS properly but
give a complete abuse of both as an example.

First off, what is '<span id="adhead">Heading Text</span><br>' supposed to
mean? Answer: it adds no meaning to the document at all. For headings, use
<hX> elements -- that is why <hX> elements exist -- it is their entire
reason for existing -- why deny them their destiny? Instead use:

<div id="advert">
<h1>Heading Text</h1>
<img src="adimg.png" alt="Buy a new boat!" height="70" width="200">
</div>

this actually has *meaning*.
...would look just fine on an older/text/aural browser, and can look
great on a visual browser by placing the following in the document's
head:

Just a guess, but I doubt eBay would let you do that.
font-size-increase: 120%;

Huh?
 
T

Tony Cooper

Just a guess, but I doubt eBay would let you do that.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but in an eBay ad one can use
HTML as the description and bypass the eBay text entry box.

When you do an eBay ad, the concern is not what eBay will allow you to
do, but how the reader will view the ad. In many categories, like the
ones I run ads in, the buyers are limited and the ad is usually viewed
by about 100 people or less. That doesn't give you much room to
exclude anyone because they are using an 800 x 600 screen or
something. An ad only runs for 7 days, and it can't be changed once a
single bid is made. One can't fiddle around until it's right. One
can't use large images that take too long to load. Anything other
than an image of the product is distracting. If it's something that
moves, flashes, or makes sounds, it annoys people.

It's a specialized application. Not that it's particularly difficult
or special, but I've seen some examples of overkill where some
whiz-bang "webmaster" tries to use a sledge hammer to kill a fly and
ends up with an ad that no one reads because it takes too long to load
or buries the important information in a load of distracting crap.
 
T

Toby A Inkster

Tony said:
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but in an eBay ad one can use
HTML as the description and bypass the eBay text entry box.

If you'd quoted a little more, you might have seen to what I was
referring:
 
S

Steve Pugh

Tony Cooper said:
In various books, and on various on-line tutorials, I see several
different ways of writing the same thing:

<width=250>
<width= 250> (space between = and 250)
<width="250">

Those are all rubbish. But let's assume you simply forgot to include
the element name.

<table width=250>, etc.

In this case they are all correct. The space between the = and the
value makes no difference (nor does a space between attribute name and
the =).

However, not all values can be left unquoted. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/sgmltut.html#idx-attribute-6 for
the rules on when attribute values must be quoted.

In XHTML attribute values must always be quoted.
I also see:

<width= 250 height= 100 font size= 6>
<width= 250 height= 100><font size= 6>

What can be included within one set of < >, and what should be broken
out into < > < >?

What are the HTML elements in question? font is not an attribute of
any HTML element, so your first example makes no sense. The font
element is also long deprecated and there is no need to use it in
pages created in 2003 so you second example is a diversion from the
real question.

Mark your content up with the appropriate HTML elements, adding those
attributes that actually exist for those elements and which are either
mandatory or needed by your content.

If you have a specific example where you can not decide whether to use
an attribute or not please post it.

Steve
 
D

Dave Saville

What are the HTML elements in question? font is not an attribute of
any HTML element, so your first example makes no sense. The font
element is also long deprecated and there is no need to use it in
pages created in 2003 so you second example is a diversion from the
real question.

Mark your content up with the appropriate HTML elements, adding those
attributes that actually exist for those elements and which are either
mandatory or needed by your content.

OK Steve - I have a question for you then. I have a site that holds
archives of newsletters. Each of which is a proper html doc in its own
right. The site also has a search facility - give it a string and it
will return a list of all newsletters that contain that string.
Clicking on a button for a particular newsletter pumps the existing
HTML through a script that puts a <font red> </font> either side of
every occurrence of string. In other words the search string is
highlighted wherever it occurs.

Now if <font> is depreciated and "bad style" how the heck do I do this?
My understanding is that I can't use a CSS, as that relates to a tag,
and I don't want to use *any* tag that will change the font style of
the doc - I just want to highlight that string - and don't want to
falsely highlight anything else.

So how?


Regards

Dave Saville

NB switch saville for nospam in address
 
T

Terry Orchard

Dave said:
I have a site that holds
archives of newsletters. Each of which is a proper html doc in its own
right. The site also has a search facility - give it a string and it
will return a list of all newsletters that contain that string.
Clicking on a button for a particular newsletter pumps the existing
HTML through a script that puts a <font red> </font> either side of
every occurrence of string. In other words the search string is
highlighted wherever it occurs.

Now if <font> is depreciated and "bad style" how the heck do I do this?
My understanding is that I can't use a CSS, as that relates to a tag,
and I don't want to use *any* tag that will change the font style of
the doc - I just want to highlight that string - and don't want to
falsely highlight anything else.

How about using <span class="searchhit"></span> around the word in
question, and include a span.searchhit entry in the stylesheet.

Terry
 
D

Dave Saville

How about using <span class="searchhit"></span> around the word in
question, and include a span.searchhit entry in the stylesheet.

Thank you Terry - I did not know about <span> - Seems a very flexible
tag. So as long as I can define a unique class then the doc using <span
class=something else> won't be affected? Cool.

Aren't these NGs great :)

Regards

Dave Saville

NB switch saville for nospam in address
 
T

Tony Cooper

Those are all rubbish. But let's assume you simply forgot to include
the element name.

<table width=250>, etc.

In this case they are all correct. The space between the = and the
value makes no difference (nor does a space between attribute name and
the =).

However, not all values can be left unquoted. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/sgmltut.html#idx-attribute-6 for
the rules on when attribute values must be quoted.

In XHTML attribute values must always be quoted.


What are the HTML elements in question? font is not an attribute of
any HTML element, so your first example makes no sense. The font
element is also long deprecated and there is no need to use it in
pages created in 2003 so you second example is a diversion from the
real question.

Mark your content up with the appropriate HTML elements, adding those
attributes that actually exist for those elements and which are either
mandatory or needed by your content.

If you have a specific example where you can not decide whether to use
an attribute or not please post it.

Thanks for your reply. My examples were poorly chosen, but I was
trying for examples where the part of the line that was not in
question would not distract. So, I deliberately left out the img
src attribute. I just wasn't thinking when I put the font size in
that same line. These are not real lines that I'd use. Just trying
for an example.


Let me try again...if the sets to be included are

font face="arial, helvetica"
font size ="6"
bold
bgcolor="#cccccc"

and so on, what would the best way to handle it. Each could be within
< >, or several could be within the < >. Which is better, and why?

There is no particular combination that I'm asking about. I'm just
looking for a general rule for what should be in one set of < >. If
you reply to this, try to stay away from the example (which may be a
bad one) and reply to the concept which is "what can be included in
one set of < >?" (when it pertains to the same general thing)

As to the font element being deprecated, I've been using "font size=
x". It works, I've never seen a real reason not to use it. I don't
need or use CSS since I'm really not doing a web page, but just a
small ad with a short life.

I'm a little surprised at the intensity of comment over this. If
something works, and it doesn't interface with anything else, why is
it a problem? I'm not trying to argue about it, but really curious
about why it's a concern.

To run on a bit, I started with HTML a couple of months ago, and - yes
- I learned what I have learned from a book and from some on-line
tutorials.

The problem with learning this way is that each step is presented
separately. The book says if you want the font to be bold, you write
<b> on one side and </b> on another. Later, the book says if you want
the font to be italic, you write <i> on one side and </i> on the
other. The book never says it's best, or not right, to write <b i> if
you want both. The book doesn't tie one thing into the next thing.
Trial and error says that doesn't work, but each combination then
becomes trial and error. So, the question here is to try to determine
some rule of thumb that saves the trial and error process from each
combination.

The second problem with learning from a book is that the average book
is $30 to $50, and out of date quicker than a woman's hem line. When
you are not employed in the field, and just doing small projects, you
end up using whatever is in that book (ie: font size="x") as long as
it works. Ask a question based on that level, and people come down
on you.
 
S

Steve Pugh

Tony Cooper said:
Let me try again...if the sets to be included are

font face="arial, helvetica"
font size ="6"
bold
bgcolor="#cccccc"

The first two should be combined as a single font element, assuming
you want _all_ the contained text to be in Arial and
extra-extra-large.

Bold is <b>. No attributes involved at all.

<table> said:
and so on, what would the best way to handle it. Each could be within
< >, or several could be within the < >. Which is better, and why?

Only the first two you list can be combined.
There is no particular combination that I'm asking about. I'm just
looking for a general rule for what should be in one set of < >.

Each <...> is either-
the start tag of an element (with none or some attributes) or
the end tag of an element.

Looking at start tags. The text immediately after the < is the name of
the element. Any text following that is an attribute.

<img src="foo" alt="bar"> is an img element with src and alt
attributes. You can not write this as said:
If
you reply to this, try to stay away from the example (which may be a
bad one) and reply to the concept which is "what can be included in
one set of < >?" (when it pertains to the same general thing)

What do you mean the same thing?
As to the font element being deprecated, I've been using "font size=
x". It works, I've never seen a real reason not to use it. I don't
need or use CSS since I'm really not doing a web page, but just a
small ad with a short life.

Are you saying that you will never, ever make a full web page?

If you ever want to make a proper web page you will want to know how
to do so to the best of your ability, won't you? So why not learn how
to do things better now before you pick up too many bad habits? For a
lot of the people on this newsgroup there was a period when they had
to unlearn a lot of things. But you have the advantage that you're
leaning now, not back in the 90s, and can learn the better way of
doing things straight off.

CSS is easier to update, takes less bandwidth and is more flexible.
I'm a little surprised at the intensity of comment over this. If
something works, and it doesn't interface with anything else, why is
it a problem? I'm not trying to argue about it, but really curious
about why it's a concern.

It's about separation of content from presentation. HTML is for
marking up content (it says what something _is_, i.e. it's mostly
about nouns). CSS is for giving a presentation to that content (it
says what something looks or sounds like, i.e. it's mostly about
adjectives).
The problem with learning this way is that each step is presented
separately. The book says if you want the font to be bold, you write
<b> on one side and </b> on another. Later, the book says if you want
the font to be italic, you write <i> on one side and </i> on the
other. The book never says it's best, or not right, to write <b i> if
you want both.

<b i> does not exist.
There is no i attribute of the bold element.
No book can mention all the things that don't exist.

You seem to be suffering some confusion about what an element is and
what and attribute is.

HTML is composed of elements. These are marked up with start and end
tags thus:
<element>...</element>

<b></b> and <i></i> are both elements.

Most elements have a number of attributes that are added to the start
tag of the element. These take the form of attribute="value"

The full element is start tag (plus attributes), content, end tag.
Always think of your HTML in terms of elements.
The book doesn't tie one thing into the next thing.
Trial and error says that doesn't work, but each combination then
becomes trial and error. So, the question here is to try to determine
some rule of thumb that saves the trial and error process from each
combination.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/

A full list of elements -
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

A full list of attributes and which elements they can be used on -
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/attributes.html

A validator to check that your code is valid -
http://validator.w3.org/

Steve
 
S

Steve Pugh

Dave Saville said:
OK Steve - I have a question for you then. I have a site that holds
archives of newsletters. Each of which is a proper html doc in its own
right. The site also has a search facility - give it a string and it
will return a list of all newsletters that contain that string.
Clicking on a button for a particular newsletter pumps the existing
HTML through a script that puts a <font red> </font> either side of
every occurrence of string. In other words the search string is
highlighted wherever it occurs.

You want to highlight the text. Sounds like a form of emphasis to me.
So use <em class="searchterm">...</em> with the appropirate style.
e.g.
em.searchterm {
font-style: inherit;
color: #ff0000;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
Now if <font> is depreciated

It's not depreciated. It's deprecated. They mean very different
things.
and "bad style" how the heck do I do this?
My understanding is that I can't use a CSS, as that relates to a tag,
and I don't want to use *any* tag that will change the font style of
the doc - I just want to highlight that string - and don't want to
falsely highlight anything else.

Check any good CSS tutorial to learn about classes.

Steve
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top