Web Standards.. Yes, no and why...

[Bub]

http://www.htmlgoodies.com <-- Great HTML site. Actually where I learned html. Just read the tutorials.

To inform readers, this thread actually was split off of another thread where Bub's post sparcked a debate on web standards. The debate was off topic in the previous thread but deserved a spot of its own.

Thanks but.. and sorry for intruding on your post.

Yuneek

[Young Spartan]

Originally Posted by Bub

http://www.htmlgoodies.com <-- Great HTML site. Actually where I learned html. Just read the tutorials.

I learned HTML there also but I do not recommend it as it teaches outdated methods of coding HTML and horrible programming practices.

Yuneek

[Order]

Originally Posted by Yuneek

I learned HTML there also but I do not recommend it as it teaches outdated methods of coding HTML and horrible programming practices.

Yuneek

To a beginner, just learning is the main point, then later you can pick up the habits, most of us can admit that when we were learning, our code looked like what we ate three weeks ago.. not good.. but time brings better habits, and if you can't learn them, HTML or XHTML will lead you no where fast.

[Young Spartan]

Originally Posted by Digital

To a beginner, just learning is the main point, then later you can pick up the habits, most of us can admit that when we were learning, our code looked like what we ate three weeks ago.. not good.. but time brings better habits, and if you can't learn them, HTML or XHTML will lead you no where fast.

Coding structural habits are one thing, web standard compliance is another. Learning to code in all capitals and use outdated versions of HTML and having tons of missing codes is building a habit thats hard to get out of, so why not just learn the right way?

I totally disagree with your post.

[Order]

To you, someone who knows the standards it is easy to say so.

You cannot expect someone what has never seen a piano to be able to sit and play a masterpiece at his or her first time, it is utterly impossible.

To expect someone new to HTML to start straight with standards at this time is absurd, it is better for them to get a grounding in basic, if old, HTML syntax prior to starting to learn standards, I agree, old habits are hard, but habit has little to do with HTML programming if you think about it. Recently, a lot of discussion has been trolling around about the standards, many feel that these standards are crappy, and pointless, since the code isn't HTML, just css, and we all can agree that until CSS is standardized, the standards for HTML 4.01, and XHTML 1.0 are pretty much to be made of.

Yuneek, you have to remember, your first step into HTML was most likely with outdated, and non standard code, I know mine was 6 years ago when I started. Just because people claim standards are better, doesnt mean they are.. I would say learn normal HTML, don't worry about standards until they are standardized, which means all browsers handle the CSS 1.0 and 2.0 specifications as it should be handled.

[Evdawg]

to throw my two cents in, i don't really agree with either of you.

XHTML is (nearly) identical to HTML. I think when you're learning, standards isnt something that you need to know, it comes after. It's easy to learn not to use font tags, and just reuse your knowledge of what tags do to learn the web standard way of where tags should go.

alright, whatever. oh, digital havn't seen you in a while. welcome back

[Young Spartan]

Originally Posted by Digital

To you, someone who knows the standards it is easy to say so.

You cannot expect someone what has never seen a piano to be able to sit and play a masterpiece at his or her first time, it is utterly impossible.

To expect someone new to HTML to start straight with standards at this time is absurd, it is better for them to get a grounding in basic, if old, HTML syntax prior to starting to learn standards, I agree, old habits are hard, but habit has little to do with HTML programming if you think about it. Recently, a lot of discussion has been trolling around about the standards, many feel that these standards are crappy, and pointless, since the code isn't HTML, just css, and we all can agree that until CSS is standardized, the standards for HTML 4.01, and XHTML 1.0 are pretty much to be made of.

Yuneek, you have to remember, your first step into HTML was most likely with outdated, and non standard code, I know mine was 6 years ago when I started. Just because people claim standards are better, doesnt mean they are.. I would say learn normal HTML, don't worry about standards until they are standardized, which means all browsers handle the CSS 1.0 and 2.0 specifications as it should be handled.

First of all, I'm not asking people to learn the concepts of web standards, but just not to learn to code in all capitals, font tags and so on. Any HTML/XHTML book is going to teach you the basics of "opening and closing a tag" and so on, just the same as HTMLGoodies does. One has the upper hand though. Almost anyone would say yes if you walked up to them and said "Is it better to learn things right the first time, instead of getting the general idea, but having to relearn to replace bad habits?" I mean, come on, think about it.

Now, moving onto the fun part. I have seen these conversations around and they are completely idiotic because the people have no idea what they are saying. From a unbiased stand-point, they are making sense, but anyone with real knowledge of web standards knows better.

First of all, coding with CSS is not coding in CSS. Coding WITH CSS is using a presentational language added onto HTML to replace the nasty habits designers have made in the past decade or so to make web sites view more profoundly. HTML was written as a totally structural language based around transfering data, no presentation needed. Well, on the boom of the internet, the creators had no chance to develop presentation codes, so random people did... ending up with HTML 4.01. So, we have a bunch of half working, half not working coding from 20,000 different hands all slapped together to kill servers and burn bandwidth. The standards have designed the presentation language we've been dying for and released a re-make of the structural HTML that was written originally.

For example, web standards are more than just using classes on every table cell to make things look nice, but instead of using -br- after every line in a menu, you make a list and make it display the same via CSS presentation adjustments. It's structural and correct, think about it, a menu is a list of pages on a website (the navigation), so you use a list.

Hopefully you are starting to understand. Web standards are far from useless. Not only do they bring structure and organization to web design, but they also open web pages to many more browsers with only one file, instead of having intrusive, server intensive, browser identification script spitting different layouts out to every browser.

Finally, CSS is standardized - you just don't see it. When you use structural mark-up with CSS, your website will look great in supportive modern browsers and will still view properly in old, non-compliant, un-supportive browsers - all without any file changes to make this happen, intensive scripts or even multiple files.... its because of the STRUCTURAL MARKUP. It will work in the old, and look great in the new.

I hope this explains something, but its the middle of the night, so I may have confused you all with ramblings, but I think its pretty explanitory.

Yuneek