any good online html code turtorial ?

[BOOGIEMAN]

Can you recommend me some good web site with html code turtorial ?

 

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Can you recommend me some good web site with html code turtorial ?

http://www.htmlhelp.org

 

[Toby Inkster]

Can you recommend me some good web site with html code turtorial ?

http://www.htmldog.com/

 

[Travis Newbury]

http://www.htmldog.com/

Excelent site! thanks for the link!

 

[BOOGIEMAN]

http://www.htmldog.com/

Thanks all

 

[info]

Can you recommend me some good web site with html code turtorial ?

www.w3schools.com is a great site to learn HTML, XTHML, CSS, and much more...

I have some links to other sites on a list I made for friends about how to
start with web design:
http://s94621231.onlinehome.us

(sorry, I never got a real domain name for it since I made it for friends)

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

www.w3schools.com is a great site to learn HTML, XTHML, CSS, and
much more...

Assuming you already know virtually everything so that you can
distinguish the wrong advice from correct information.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Assuming you already know virtually everything so that you can
distinguish the wrong advice from correct information.

Can you sugest a better place (other than the specs) to learn?

 

[Toby Inkster]

Can you sugest a better place (other than the specs) to learn?

http://www.htmldog.com/
http://www.cgi101.com/
http://www.php.net/en/manual/

 

[David Håsäther]

http://www.htmldog.com/

From <http://htmldog.com/guides/htmladvanced/declarations/>:

| Note that the DOCTYPE tag is a bit of a rebel and demands to be
| written in upper case and adorned with an exclamation mark. It also
| breaks the rules in that it is the only tag that doesn't need
| closing.

No, that can't be a good site for learning HTML.

 

[Toby Inkster]

From <http://htmldog.com/guides/htmladvanced/declarations/>:
| Note that the DOCTYPE tag is a bit of a rebel and demands to be
| written in upper case and adorned with an exclamation mark. It also
| breaks the rules in that it is the only tag that doesn't need
| closing.

No, that can't be a good site for learning HTML.

HTML Dog teaches XHTML 1.0 Strict, so it is perfectly correct in saying
that it's the only tag that doesn't need a closing tag.

 

[David Håsäther]

HTML Dog teaches XHTML 1.0 Strict, so it is perfectly correct in
saying that it's the only tag that doesn't need a closing tag.

The point is that it isn't a tag at all. It's a markup declaration.

 

[Andy Dingley]

HTML Dog teaches XHTML 1.0 Strict, so it is perfectly correct in saying
that it's the only tag that doesn't need a closing tag.

"Although older versions of HTML lazily allowed some tags not to be
closed, latest standards require all tags to be closed. "
(also from HTMLdog)

When it's so easy to word things like this _correctly_, there's no
excuse for a tutorial to use lax or misleading phrasing.

I'm reminded of some CIW course material I was reading last week that
taught XHTML. However it treated XHTML as if it were simply "HTML 5",
didn't once mention XML, and still taught the use of things like a
valign attribute.

Those who can't, shouldn't attempt to teach.

 

[Toby Inkster]

still taught the use of things like a valign attribute.

Why not? valign ain't been deprecated yet.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Why not? valign ain't been deprecated yet.

Well it ought to be. Here's a course that is taking such a hardcore
minimal "current best practice only" viewpoint that they're teaching
XHTML as the only possible HTML version to use, even in the absence of
any explanation as to what XML is about. Then they screw it all up by
sticking with vlink and valign. This teaches a partial view of the HTML
world, a view that's not useful or self-consistent (whether you favour
3.2 or X), and a view that's extremely confusing to the poor student.
It's not only leaving the students in a poor state for achieving any
decent results, it means there's a whole lot of re-education needed
before you can begin to fix things.

When I teach HTML I begin with 2.0 ("Hello World" in a <p> and no
doctype). Then I introduce a useful subset of the elements from 4.01.
Then CSS and a bit of presentation control. Then DTDs and the concept of
validity in element nesting. Finally XML, XML well-formedness and XHTML.

Students can stop at any point, and they've learned and understood
everything they've been shown up to that point. What they know might
only be partial, but it's never up a dead end that they'd need to
un-learn before proceeding.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Well [valign] ought to be [deprecated].

In your opinion. And in mine as it happens. But Dave Raggett et al
presumably had some reason for keeping the aligny thingies for tables.

I somehow think that if the default vertical alignment in table cells were
"top", then they wouldn't have bothered leaving this attribute in. It's
only left in because of the silly default "middle", which is almost
universally over-ridden by authors.

Here's a course that is taking such a hardcore minimal "current best
practice only" viewpoint that they're teaching XHTML as the only
possible HTML version to use, even in the absence of any explanation as
to what XML is about.

It's meant to be a very simple tutorial. Teaching multiple versions of
(X)HTML would complicate things.

Then they screw it all up by sticking with vlink and valign.

From what I can see, the vlink attribute is mentioned exactly once on
htmldog. This is under the "Attributes" subheading of the "Bad Tags" page.
The same page that says:

| font, which could be used to define the font name, size
| and colour of an element has gained a deserved reputation
| of being the notoriously mischievous evil goblin lord of
| Tagworld. Old sites (even some new ones) have font tags
| splattered all over their pages like a plague of termites.

It says of vlink:

| So you might think you're using the good tags, but there
| are a few pesky parasitical attributes lurking about that
| might turn them sour. [...] link, alink, vlink could be
| used within the body tag to specify the colour of links
| (non-visited, active and visited). CSS baby - :link,
| :active and :visited all do the job.

I personally don't count a description such as "vlinks are parasitical"
followed by a pointer to a CSS alternative as "sticking with vlinks".

And valign is only mentioned in the HTML Tags reference -- it is not
mentioned at all in the tutorial.

The HTML Tags reference is simply a list of elements denfined in XHTML 1.0
Strict with very brief descriptions, a list of required and optional
attributes and cross-references to the tutorial.

When I teach HTML I begin with 2.0 ("Hello World" in a <p> and no
doctype). Then I introduce a useful subset of the elements from 4.01.
Then CSS and a bit of presentation control. Then DTDs and the concept of
validity in element nesting. Finally XML, XML well-formedness and XHTML.

Students can stop at any point, and they've learned and understood
everything they've been shown up to that point.

Well, that's your method and it doesn't sound bad.

I happen to like HTML Dog's approach though. I find it succinct and
accurate.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Well [valign] ought to be [deprecated].

In your opinion. And in mine as it happens. But Dave Raggett et al
presumably had some reason for keeping the aligny thingies for tables.

In the spec then I think it should be permitted - that's the spec of '97
- not a good time to be throwing it away. I'm talking about its use
in the teaching of HTML in 2005, specifically in reference to CIW's
training materials rather than HTMLDog.

 

[Toby Inkster]

I'm talking about its use in the teaching of HTML in 2005, specifically
in reference to CIW's training materials rather than HTMLDog.

Ah. I missed those three letters earlier and still thought we were talking
about HTMl Dog.

 

[Guest]

Assuming you already know virtually everything so that you can
distinguish the wrong advice from correct information.

What wrong information did you find on w3schools? I learned from that
site but haven't gone through it in a long time.

 

[Guest]

Can you sugest a better place (other than the specs) to learn?

I still think w3schools.com is a great place to learn. I learned HTML &
XHTML there and expanded on that knowledge from other sites. I think that
w3schools is great because it gives you a quick introduction to a lot of
different things. It also has references so you can go back and find HTML
color tables, lists of HTML tags, etc. The site is very well organized
and you will be able to go back and find information quickly even if you
forgot which page you originally saw it on.

You can find a whole list of HTML tutorials and other web design
stuff here:
http://s94621231.onlinehome.us