Printable View
I want to learn HTML but :
1-how easy and logical is it ?
2-Any links for good tutorials on HTML ?
3-How long will it take me to get a good grasp of it ?
4-Is it true that this language classified into beginners and intermediate and no advanced ?
5-Thanks
:)
HTML is hardly considered a "language" by most. It is nothing more than a bunch of tags which make text display in different manners.
It is logical once you get the hang of it, which shouldn't take long at all if you understand the concept.
My concepts of HTML:
1) It is markup. You cannot perform algorithms strictly with HTML.
2) It is for displaying text in a variety of styles, that's it.
3) That's it, and the first 2 are redundant.
If you want to do anything useful with webpages, make sure you read up on CSS (Cascading Style Sheets, useful for making quick style changes), JavaScript (client-side scripting, useful for quick calculations and snazzy effects), and PHP (or some other server side scripting language so you can tie your website to a database).
links?
www.webmonkey.com
www.htmlgoodies.com
www.dynamicdrive.com
www.php.net
Otherwise, do a google search and I'm sure you'll come up with something.
When you learn HTML, then go to XHTML and NEVER use HTML again. If you know HTML, learning XHTML will probably take a whole 10 minutes. Then it's on to CSS!
BTW, learning HTML is quite easy. Just a simple tag and look at the output. It took me about a weekend or less to learn it.
Yes, HTML is a mark-up language (an ML). There are no logical operations. HTML is truly simple to learn.
I do want to warn you away from lots of bad habits. As a result, I suggest you use the World Wide Web Consortium as your definitive guide. If you find any information that contradicts the W3C, then consider it wrong. The W3C is the body that drafts the standards recommendations.
If you are learning HTML, and have never had any web experience, then yes, start with XHTML. The difference is minor, but important. XHTML takes the thought of HTML to the next level: content and layout should be seperated, so they can each be changed easily and independently of the other.
Also, get Mozilla, Firefox, or Opera. IE is the worst browser on the planet. It has very poor support of even five year old standards.
Thanks everyone . I'll check these sites and probably come up with more questions later . :)
The biggest misconception you can make for modern HTML (as opposed to the perverted HTML most people use) is this: HTML is NOT for applying styles to text. HTML is for applying semantics to text. It tells the user or the user agent (browser), "Hey, this sentence is an important heading, this sentence is a less important heading, this over there is a paragraph of normal text and this part is emphasized." It's the browser's responsibility to give this information a visual representation by applying styles to it, making the headings large and bold and the emphasized part italic. You can use CSS to tell the browser more precisely what should look how, but the HTML is the wrong place for it.
Travis is wrong, the concept of separation of content and presentation is not part of XHTML, it's part of HTML, specifically the variation called HTML 4.01 Strict. XHTML is merely a version of HTML that uses XML instead of SGML as meta-language, and there are, like with HTML 4, three variations of XHTML 1.0, which match the three HTML variants exactly.
See
http://www.csszengarden.com/
for beautiful examples of the power of this concept.
Does it matter? as long as the user sees a nice page they are happy and couldnt care less about standards and perverted html.
It's thought like those that lead to non-cross-browser compatibility. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Does it matter? as long as the user sees a nice page they are happy and couldnt care less about standards and perverted html.
This is the problem with absolutes. People get painted into a corner over misunderstandings. I'm not wrong, and as such CB is. He could've just said something less extreme like, I don't understand or don't agree with, or better yet, to clarify what someone said....Quote:
Originally posted by CornedBee
Travis is wrong, the concept of separation of content and presentation is not part of XHTML, it's part of HTML, specifically the variation called HTML 4.01 Strict. XHTML is merely a version of HTML that uses XML instead of SGML as meta-language, and there are, like with HTML 4, three variations of XHTML 1.0, which match the three HTML variants exactly.
Sorry if anyone got the impression that separation of content and layout was not one of the goals of HTML. It is, but XHTML helps make that separation clearer.
I was trying to find one of the ways that XHTML does this. And there is a statement at W3C that says that XHTML Strict is "free of markup associated with layout", but looking at the DTD, it is still there, so I'm not sure what that meant.
Very well. I disagree. (And so does the W3C ;))
XHTML 1.0 is a mere reformulation of HTML 4.01. Look at the specification, it doesn't even describe what each element means, it leaves this to the HTML 4 spec. Thus, XHTML 1.0 Transitional is the "backwards compatible" version which is for converting the style markup (<b>, <i> etc.) to XHTML. XHTML 1.0 Strict, like HTML 4.01 Strict, is the version that wants to separate content and presentation. This DTD does not include the presentational elements.
But I was referring to this:
which is, in a way, wrong. It's not XHTML that takes this thought to the next level.Quote:
XHTML takes the thought of HTML to the next level: content and layout should be seperated, so they can each be changed easily and independently of the other.
Anyway, as standards advocates we shouldn't fuss :)
Let's instead go for the backwards people.
You're right, in a way. However, who are these users who see the nice page? Mostly they are IE users, it's not uncommon for other browsers to fail to display the page correctly. When you author your pages so that they display correctly in IE, you make it nearly impossible for other browsers to display it properly, because IE's quirks are not documented, they have to be discovered by trial and error.Quote:
Does it matter? as long as the user sees a nice page they are happy and couldnt care less about standards and perverted html.
The official standards on the other hand are well documented and easily available. If browser authors and page authors both use these standards, the pages are bound to look the same in all browsers. The problem here is again IE, which does not implement the standards properly.
Now, you could argue that since IE has most of the browser market, it IS the standard. BUT, IE could just be implemented after the official standard. Other browsers cannot be implemented after IE's standard because that "standard" is simply not known!
There's another group that will not see the nice page. That's the people with disabilities. People with bad or no eyesight rely on text magnification and aural browsers to use the web. Standards-compliant (X)HTML is by default a lot more accessible for these than quirks HTML. There's additional thoughts for both versions to get really good accessibility, but the base is far better with the standards, and it is easier to adjust.
Other advantages?
Bandwidth. People who converted their legacy pages to modern pages report code size savings up to 50%! This means 50% less bandwidth and server space requirement to serve the same amount of users, for whom the pages will display faster. That's real money there!
Maintainability. With the separation of content and presentation you can sometimes (especially if you plan for the possibility) change the presentation of a page without a single change to the markup. See the csszengarden (above link) for examples. Whichever design you choose, the HTML is always the same. The same for my own page, http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e0226430/ , which is not accessible with IE. You can change the look of the page in Mozilla without clicking a link or anything, just go to the view menu, the use style submenu and choose one of the styles there. (This Mozilla feature is incompletly implemented, so a reload or link traversal resets it to the original stylesheet.) This means that you can change the presentation of a page without changing every single file on the server, and it means that you can add content without caring about the presentation.
If that's not enough to convince you then you cannot be helped.
Without standards, your users wouldn't see the same thing. It's standards that make sure (or try to make sure) that a <b></b> tag does the same thing in IE as it does in Moz.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Does it matter? as long as the user sees a nice page they are happy and couldnt care less about standards and perverted html.
Without standards, your user wouldn't see a nice page if they were using a different browser than you created it in.
That's what I thought, too. But looking at the strict DTD for XHTML 1, the b element is still defined, as is the style attribute. Maybe it is just me, but I think you should use span and all style should be centralized in a style element or link'ed stylesheet.Quote:
Originally posted by CornedBee
This DTD does not include the presentational elements.
Agreed, though I have less enthusiaism for XHTML, now. I do like that XML is more rigid than SGML, so all tags must be closed. I think that could make things easier on UAs. But all of this is just tangents.Quote:
Let's instead go for the backwards people.
CB has good points. This is all part of the common "embrace, extend, extinguish" policy of MS. It makes me mad, knowing that MS has a seat on the standards board. MS helps make (mind you, I don't know how active they are on the board, but they are members) the standards that they refuse to support.Quote:
The problem here is again IE, which does not implement the standards properly.
Now, you could argue that since IE has most of the browser market, it IS the standard. BUT, IE could just be implemented after the official standard. Other browsers cannot be implemented after IE's standard because that "standard" is simply not known!
Anyone else having problems getting to W3C's website this morning? The server is there, and I can get deep links, but http://www.w3.org/ isn't working. May just be me.
I read a tutorial consists of 6 pages , and I'm done with HTML . Is that all ?
To be quite honest , it's wasting of time and I think I won't profit this as long as there's FrontPage and other Page Maker ! :(
Nooooooooooooooo! Don't fall into the trap! :eek: Learn to code it yourself so you actually understand what is going on!
Would that make any difference from WebPage Makers ? I don't think so ! So why should I spend hours , and maybe days :( to write the code for personal webpages . If it's PHP , then I think it's worth learning . :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by ober5861
Nooooooooooooooo! Don't fall into the trap! :eek: Learn to code it yourself so you actually understand what is going on!
Frontpage makes bloated code that is unncecessary and requires you to have special extensions on your server. Why limit yourself and piss off people with slower (not much, but still) loading times?
if it's this case , then I'll take my words back ...........:DQuote:
Originally posted by ober5861
Frontpage makes bloated code that is unncecessary and requires you to have special extensions on your server. Why limit yourself and piss off people with slower (not much, but still) loading times?
anyways , do you think 6 hours were enough ? Now , I can see the tags flying everywhere around me :eek: .......:D lol
It'll be enough to get you started. But you'll pick other things up as you begin to use it.
oh btw , what are good and free editors (and preferably with drop downlist (you know like in VB C#, C++)) that you usually use ? I used Notepad but it sucks sometimes :(
Dreamweaver is just ****ing AWESOME.Quote:
Originally posted by Pirate
oh btw , what are good and free editors (and preferably with drop downlist (you know like in VB C#, C++)) that you usually use ? I used Notepad but it sucks sometimes :(
Only problem is that it costs money (but judging from your name, you don't care).
Chami HTML Kit.Quote:
Originally posted by Pirate
oh btw , what are good and free editors (and preferably with drop downlist (you know like in VB C#, C++)) that you usually use ? I used Notepad but it sucks sometimes :(
But notepad is still good. Dremweaver, FrontPage and all the other WYSIWYG editors aren't worth the pathetic **** that gets generated. :)
Wow, you have never used Dreamweaver in the Homesite view if you think like that.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Dremweaver, FrontPage and all the other WYSIWYG editors aren't worth the pathetic **** that gets generated. :)
I develop all of my pages with the Homesite view in Dreamweaver, which is basically a fancy syntax highlighter. It has auto complition and is perfect for manipulating multiple pages.
Also, it can generate validated webpages in HTML and XHTML in the WYSIWYG part if you setup it up to do so.
FrontPage is quite horrible, so don't compare it to Dreamweaver.
Also, not long ago I seen an XHTML/CSS WYSIWYG editor that actually generated valid XHTML/CSS code and was free. I don't remember where it is now though :(
FP is one of those sucking products . It's the main reason I was trying to learn coding my web page . Has anyone tried FP 2003 ?
For DW , sure top websites creator of all time . I got from my hidden source btw .:)
jEdit is a very nice all-purpose editor, and it even has dropdowns and auto-validation for XHTML, dropdowns only for HTML.
www.jedit.org
The style attribute is ok, and font is gone, but i, b and the others from the fontstyle entity are weird.Quote:
That's what I thought, too. But looking at the strict DTD for XHTML 1, the b element is still defined, as is the style attribute.
No I haven't. I based my opinion on the older versions of Dreamweaver. What version of Dreamweaver do you refer to?Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
Wow, you have never used Dreamweaver in the Homesite view if you think like that.
I use dreamweaver MX 2004 and it is brilliant. I make pages in the code view and its useful to have different coloured text for different code and as Kasracer was saying the auto completion tool really speeds things up.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
No I haven't. I based my opinion on the older versions of Dreamweaver. What version of Dreamweaver do you refer to?
I think people still use notepad to show off a little bit, but i might be wrong.
I don't think anyone uses Notepad for real stuff. But there are other editors which basically do the same as DW's code view (syntax highlighting and auto completion) without all the bloat of the WYSIWYG designer.
I also use Homesite, but I never use the Dreamweaver portion of it. (I have to say that I don't think I've ever even switched over to that view :eek: ) I'd rather use the code view which has excellent syntax highlighting for both HTML, XML, and PHP.Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
I develop all of my pages with the Homesite view in Dreamweaver, which is basically a fancy syntax highlighter. It has auto complition and is perfect for manipulating multiple pages.
Was Homesite bought out by Dreamweaver? I used to use it back in the day, but it was by Allaire or something.
Allaire was bought out by Macromedia. Try going to www.allaire.com It sends you to Macromedia's site.
Dreamweaver MX and MX 2004 both have homesite built into it (since Macromedia bought it).Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
No I haven't. I based my opinion on the older versions of Dreamweaver. What version of Dreamweaver do you refer to?
If you use DW solely for the code view syntax highlighting and other associated features (and thus are still hardcoding) then that is fine. But the WYSIWYG portion is no better then any other program.HTML is not for defining how text is displayed. It is for defining the structure of a document. If any element within a page is there for purely stylistic purposes then it has been misued.Quote:
My concepts of HTML
2) It is for displaying text in a variety of styles, that's it
This depends absolutely on what you consider "the user". If by the user you mean you then by all means write whatever code you want. But if by the user you mean any potential person to be visiting your page then strictly following the HTML specification is *very* important. It is what allows your page to function universally. Even if a blind person or someone with PDA were to visit your page, following the HTML spec means your site will still be usable with these forms of access.Quote:
Does it matter? as long as the user sees a nice page they are happy and couldnt care less about standards and perverted html
No, in that aspect it is definately better than most WYSIWYG programs out there. You can use 2004 MX to build compliant webpages using CSS positioning all within the WYSIWYG editor.Quote:
Originally posted by jeffmott
. But the WYSIWYG portion is no better then any other program.
Try the samething in FrontPage.
Depends on how lucky you are ;)Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
Without standards, your user wouldn't see a nice page if they were using a different browser than you created it in.