ISO Css/Html coding help site [Archive]

View Full Version : ISO Css/Html coding help site

N L Kerr

02-11-2008, 08:54 PM

Hi there,

I'm wondering if any one can recommend a css/html coding website (I'm sure they exist I just can't find one).

I'm experienced with html, and have built my own static websites from scratch using html and nested tables. However I would love to learn how to create dynamic web sites too. I've read numerous tutorials and understand the basics of css and the differences between the two, but I'm afraid I'm still a bit lost. I'd love to be able to create a simple layout, but can't seem to find the right tutorials to start.

Thanks so much for any suggestions
enjoy your day.

boogyman

02-11-2008, 09:34 PM

http://www.tizag.com/

N L Kerr

02-11-2008, 10:23 PM

Thank you so much Boogeyman :). I'll head right over there and check it out.

take care,

Twey

02-12-2008, 02:39 AM

That's a bad site. This is their "first complete webpage":
<html>
<head>
<title>My WebPage!</title>
</head>
<body>
Hello World! All my content goes here!
</body>
</html>As you can see, it includes no DOCTYPE or block-level element. It's completely invalid. The tutorials also contain some misleading information:
Tags should be lower-case letters if you plan on publishing your work. This is the standard for XHTML and Dynamic HTML.This is a downright lie. It is standard for XHTML, and the page will not work in XHTML with upper-case tags, because XHTML is case-sensitive. However, HTML is case-insensitive, and indeed the notation used in the standard has element names in upper-case.

Here's some of their sample "HTML code":
<br />(note for newbies: this is not HTML). They also suggest using deprecated presentational markup:
<body>Body Tag (acts as a content shell)
<p>Paragraph Tag</p>
<h2>Heading Tag</h2>
<b>Bold Tag</b>
<i>Italic Tag</i>
</body>

And, always a dead giveaway, their site is completely invalid (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.tizag.com%2fhtmlT%2ftags.php) transitional pseudo-XHTML, suggesting that they themselves don't actually have a clue what they're talking about. boogyman, it's probably better if you don't link people to this site.

If you're looking for a real tutorial, try http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/.

Master_script_maker

02-12-2008, 01:04 PM

also i believe a great website is http://www.w3schools.com.they have complete references, great tutorials, tag lists, and every language you need. (note: the html is slightly out of date so look at XHTML for doctypes) also passed validation with flying colors: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fw3schools.com%2Ftags%2Fdefault.asp (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fw3schools.com%2Ftags%2Fdefault.asp&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0)

N L Kerr

02-12-2008, 08:22 PM

Thanks so much for the links. I'll definately check them out.

Take care,

Twey

02-13-2008, 03:03 AM

W3Schools' tutorials are also of poor quality. They have a reputation for misleading information, and failing to distinguish between standards-compliant features and IE-only features.

http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_intro.asp

"XHTML is aimed to replace HTML" -- Wrong.
"XHTML is a stricter and cleaner version of HTML." -- Former is wrong, latter is subjective. "XHTML is almost identical to HTML 4.01" -- Correct in one way, very very wrong in another. No clear explanation provided. "W3C defines XHTML as the latest version of HTML." -- Wrong. "XHTML will gradually replace HTML." -- Wrong. "All New Browsers Support XHTML" -- Wrong: IE (the most popular browser on the market) is still lacking support. "XHTML is compatible with HTML 4.01." -- Wrong: see http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml.

http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_why.asp

"XML is a markup language where everything has to be marked up correctly, which results in "well-formed" documents." -- So is HTML. "XML was designed to describe data and HTML was designed to display data." -- Wrong: both are designed to semantically mark up structural data, although there are presentational elements in (deprecated versions, one of which W3Schools is using, of) both. "while waiting for the rest of the world to upgrade to XML supported browsers, XHTML gives you the opportunity to write "well-formed" documents now, that work in all browsers and that are backward browser compatible !!!" -- Semi-correct. I presume it's talking about serving XHTML as text/html. It doesn't mention that while these documents are backwards-compatible with HTML browsers, they won't work in XHTML-only browsers, aren't compatible with any standard, and will probably have to be modified to work as XHTML. See: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml. Three exclamation marks are the sign of a deranged mind. :) "In HTML, some elements can be improperly nested within each other, like this:
<b><i>This text is bold and italic</b></i>Wrong.

http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_syntax.asp

"The id Attribute Replaces The name Attribute" -- Wrong: the id attribute and the name attribute serve different purposes, and the latter is still valid on many elements (such as <input>). This is not new to XHTML. "To interoperate with older browsers for a while, you should use both name and id, with identical attribute values" -- Only if you're talking compatibility with IE3. "All XHTML documents must have a DOCTYPE declaration. The html, head and body elements must be present, and the title must be present inside the head element." -- Again, not new to XHTML.There are plenty of other examples. Check out their forums (http://www.w3schools.com/forum/default.asp) for bad information pointed out by members there, all of whom have been pointedly ignored by whoever is responsible for maintaining the site.
also passed validation with flying colorsUnfortunately, they're serving it with the wrong MIME type (a distinction that they mention nowhere in their XHTML tutorial), so it isn't really valid at all. They're also using a DOCTYPE designed for compatibility with HTML 3. Transitional DOCTYPEs are only used these days to excuse sloppy coding.

N L Kerr

02-17-2008, 05:13 PM

Thank you so much Twey for all your valuable help. I have a better idea of what to look for and what to avoid. I appreciate the time and patience you've taken to share this info.

Have a wonderful day,