By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
425,763 Members | 1,609 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 425,763 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

I need a consensus (HTML - CSS)

P: n/a
I am trying to learn HTML and have obtained several books on the
subject. However, I am confused with the proper way of going about it
as most of these books give me the basic tags and then say they will
soon be deprecated and advise using CSS stylesheets. Which comes first?
Do I learn the old tags and then "upgrade" to CSS or just bypass the
old tags and learn only the CSS procedures. Doesn't one have to
understand the old tags to use the new?

Also, there are plenty of books and online examples on how to build web
pages using HTML. There are also plenty of books and online examples on
how to create CSS stylesheets. But, I have yet to see any books on how
to begin creating a website using ONLY CSS stylesheets without using
the "deprecated" code.

Insight anyone?

(Remove the .1354XT in the email below)

si******************@comcast.net

Jan 6 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
36 Replies


P: n/a
sonnystarks wrote:
I am trying to learn HTML and have obtained several books on the
subject. However, I am confused with the proper way of going about it
as most of these books give me the basic tags and then say they will
soon be deprecated and advise using CSS stylesheets. Which comes first?
Do I learn the old tags and then "upgrade" to CSS or just bypass the
old tags and learn only the CSS procedures. Doesn't one have to
understand the old tags to use the new?
You need to distinguish two things: structure and presentation. HTML is
all about structuring your text: marking up lists, headers, links, etc.
CSS is about the way these things look: using diamonds as list markers,
displaying headers in another font, and making hyperlinks pink, if you
wish.

The remark that tags will soon be deprectaed only applies to those tags
that should never have been part of HTML in the first place, since
they're about presentation rather that structure: <font>, <center> etc.

Author your HTML such that it looks acceptable without any styles
applied. Then add styling with CSS.
But, I have yet to see any books on how
to begin creating a website using ONLY CSS stylesheets without using
the "deprecated" code.


That's because you can't write a site with only CSS. CSS is for
styling, and if there's nothing to style, you have no website. CSS does
not supersede HTML, it merely helps you make your pages look (or sound
or, in the remote future, feel) nice.

--
Garmt de Vries.

Jan 6 '06 #2

P: n/a
sonnystarks wrote:
I am trying to learn HTML and have obtained several books on the
subject. However, I am confused with the proper way of going about it
as most of these books give me the basic tags and then say they will
soon be deprecated and advise using CSS stylesheets. Which comes first?
Do I learn the old tags and then "upgrade" to CSS or just bypass the
old tags and learn only the CSS procedures. Doesn't one have to
understand the old tags to use the new?
You need html (xhtml isn't really mainstream yet - best left).
I'd recommend 4.01 strict ideally, or 4.01 transitional if & when you
feel the need. Use a full doctype
(http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/doctype.html), as most browsers
use this to decide whether to render in standard or quirks mode - quirks
mode is best avoided.
For styling, you need css.
Also, there are plenty of books and online examples on how to build web
pages using HTML. There are also plenty of books and online examples on
how to create CSS stylesheets. But, I have yet to see any books on how
to begin creating a website using ONLY CSS stylesheets without using
the "deprecated" code.

Insight anyone?


Test as you go along (mozilla or firefox is good for this, as they're
fairly standards compliant).
Also validate your html and css using the various validators:
http://validator.w3.org/
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/
When it's valid, good-looking, and complete, then try other browsers
you'd like to support - most shouldn't have any trouble with valid code.
Those that do are:
all versions of internet explorer (probably most of your visitors),
netscape4 (debatable how much support effort is worthwhile).
safari can have problems with dynamic pages (javascript).

It may seem eccentric to leave the most popular browser out until the
end, but because every version has its own quirks, it's easy to get
bogged down in all kinds of complications, and wind up with a page that
works nowhere except explorer (is this the microsoft master plan? ;).
Best to build a completely standards compliant page, and then tweak
slightly as necessary. If you have problems with that, this group will
be happy to help.
If you go the other way, starting with explorer, you'll be making work
for yourself, and won't get a lot of sympathy here.

netscape4 is relatively rare these days - you may decide you're not
willing to bother with it at all, or you may use a css hiding technique
(use google to find these) to hide some or all css from it. Again
though, you must test after every change - it's very easy to break it
with a single line of css, so it displays nothing at all. The goal
should be "graceful degradation" - to display the content in readable
form without worrying about making it perfectly pretty.

Tables - are good for presenting tabular information. They're not
intended for positioning every pixel on your page - that's presentation,
and it's done by css.

Chris
Jan 6 '06 #3

P: n/a
sonnystarks wrote:
I am trying to learn HTML and have obtained several books on the
subject. However, I am confused with the proper way of going about it
as most of these books give me the basic tags and then say they will
soon be deprecated and advise using CSS stylesheets. Which comes first?
Do I learn the old tags and then "upgrade" to CSS or just bypass the
old tags and learn only the CSS procedures. Doesn't one have to
understand the old tags to use the new?

Also, there are plenty of books and online examples on how to build web
pages using HTML. There are also plenty of books and online examples on
how to create CSS stylesheets. But, I have yet to see any books on how
to begin creating a website using ONLY CSS stylesheets without using
the "deprecated" code.

Insight anyone?


I can't find anything in your message that expands on your claim that
you need a consensus. A consensus is something you're not likely to find
on Usenet!
Jan 6 '06 #4

P: n/a
Thank you for your reply. Yours was the most insightful so far and has
encouraged me to continue onward. My next question is :Can you refer me
to a specific web page that has only the "necessary HTML," (linked to a
CSS stylesheet) so that I might "View source" to further understand
your reply?

Thanx,
Sonny
Garmt de Vries wrote:
sonnystarks wrote:
I am trying to learn HTML and have obtained several books on the
subject. However, I am confused with the proper way of going about it
as most of these books give me the basic tags and then say they will
soon be deprecated and advise using CSS stylesheets. Which comes first?
Do I learn the old tags and then "upgrade" to CSS or just bypass the
old tags and learn only the CSS procedures. Doesn't one have to
understand the old tags to use the new?


You need to distinguish two things: structure and presentation. HTML is
all about structuring your text: marking up lists, headers, links, etc.
CSS is about the way these things look: using diamonds as list markers,
displaying headers in another font, and making hyperlinks pink, if you
wish.

The remark that tags will soon be deprectaed only applies to those tags
that should never have been part of HTML in the first place, since
they're about presentation rather that structure: <font>, <center> etc.

Author your HTML such that it looks acceptable without any styles
applied. Then add styling with CSS.
But, I have yet to see any books on how
to begin creating a website using ONLY CSS stylesheets without using
the "deprecated" code.


That's because you can't write a site with only CSS. CSS is for
styling, and if there's nothing to style, you have no website. CSS does
not supersede HTML, it merely helps you make your pages look (or sound
or, in the remote future, feel) nice.

--
Garmt de Vries.


Jan 7 '06 #5

P: n/a
Thus far, the consensus I have received has been exceptional! Insight
from three different individuals (I could still use more) is truly
invaluable than accepting one person's opinion as gospel. I would
appreciate your insight on the question as well.

Thanx,
Sonny

Jan 7 '06 #6

P: n/a
Thank you, Chris. Your insight on different browers and their quirks is
most helpful.

Sonny

Jan 7 '06 #7

P: n/a
sonnystarks wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Yours was the most insightful so far and has
encouraged me to continue onward. My next question is :Can you refer me
to a specific web page that has only the "necessary HTML," (linked to a
CSS stylesheet) so that I might "View source" to further understand
your reply?


Feel free to look around at www.jules-verne.nl, a site that I maintain.
But if you're new to all this, and you don't want to lose yourself in
all kinds of details, you had better find yourself a suitable tutorial.

Good luck!

--
Garmt de Vries.

Jan 7 '06 #8

P: n/a
In article <11*********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
Garmt de Vries <g.*******@phys.uu.nl> wrote:
sonnystarks wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Yours was the most insightful so far and has
encouraged me to continue onward. My next question is :Can you refer me
to a specific web page that has only the "necessary HTML," (linked to a
CSS stylesheet) so that I might "View source" to further understand
your reply?


Feel free to look around at www.jules-verne.nl, a site that I maintain.
But if you're new to all this, and you don't want to lose yourself in
all kinds of details, you had better find yourself a suitable tutorial.


I found the tutorial at w3.org helpful:

<http://www.w3.org/Style/LieBos2e/enter/>

- it's an excerpt from a book by Lie and Bos, "Cascading Style Sheets,
designing for the web". Lots of other good resources on that site (!)

The only thing I remember that was not well explained in that excerpt
was the use of "solid white" vs "white" for borders, but maybe that is
discussed elsewhere in the original book (which I should probably look
for...)
Jan 7 '06 #9

P: n/a
"sonnystarks" <si***********@comcast.net> wrote in
news:11*********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com:
Thank you, Chris. Your insight on different browers and their quirks
is most helpful.


As someone else pointed out, you'll never get a "consensus" on usenet.
Some opinions, yes; some very insightful opinions, yes; but consensus
means all agree and on usenet, that'll never happen.

The next thing I'd like to point out to Sonny is that you need to
learn proper posting style if you are going to continue posting on
usenet. Note how I left some of your message so that all would know
who/what I am replying to. Many of us don't use google so don't see
things the way you do.

I also found Chris' post very good as a discussion of seperating
content from layout and browser quirks. Good post. In another of
Sonny's replies, I also noted that he'd like to see some more sites
that properly seperate content and layout. I can't say that I'm the
best at it; I'm sure some can/will find some faults, but feel free to
look over my sites listed at http://surecann.com/ and if you really
want to see something, keep watch on http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ over this
year as it gets a total facelift changing from table layout and tag
soup to strict XHTML.

A note on the use of the XHTML. That decision was not mine and is due
to later incorporating much of the website into a CMS that uses
XML/XHTML from what I am told. My other sites will stay HTML 4.01
strict as there is no need for XML/XHTML.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Jan 7 '06 #10

P: n/a
begin quotation
from sonnystarks <si***********@comcast.net>
in message <11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>
posted at 2006-01-06T00:02
I am trying to learn HTML and have obtained several books on the
subject. However, I am confused with the proper way of going about it
as most of these books give me the basic tags and then say they will
soon be deprecated and advise using CSS stylesheets. Which comes first?
Do I learn the old tags and then "upgrade" to CSS or just bypass the
old tags and learn only the CSS procedures. Doesn't one have to
understand the old tags to use the new?
In this case, not really. I would skip over anything marked
"deprecated". Anything that doesn't teach CSS as the proper medium for
suggesting presentation now is quite out of date.

If you happen to see the old tags, know what they mean, which,
structurally speaking, is usually not much as they date from an era in
which too many people thought of HTML tags as "formatting commands"
(this is what is meant by "tag soup").
Also, there are plenty of books and online examples on how to build web
pages using HTML. There are also plenty of books and online examples on
how to create CSS stylesheets. But, I have yet to see any books on how
to begin creating a website using ONLY CSS stylesheets without using
the "deprecated" code.


Are you sure you bought/borrowed the most current books on HTML?

--
___ _ _____ |*|
/ __| |/ / _ \ |*| Shawn K. Quinn
\__ \ ' < (_) | |*| sk*****@speakeasy.net
|___/_|\_\__\_\ |*| Houston, TX, USA
Jan 8 '06 #11

P: n/a
"Shawn K. Quinn" <sk*****@speakeasy.net> wrote in
news:sl********************@xevious.platypuslabs.o rg:
begin quotation
from sonnystarks <si***********@comcast.net>
in message <11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>
posted at 2006-01-06T00:02
I am trying to learn HTML and have obtained several books on the
subject. However, I am confused with the proper way of going about
it as most of these books give me the basic tags and then say they
will soon be deprecated and advise using CSS stylesheets. Which
comes first? Do I learn the old tags and then "upgrade" to CSS or
just bypass the old tags and learn only the CSS procedures. Doesn't
one have to understand the old tags to use the new?


In this case, not really. I would skip over anything marked
"deprecated". Anything that doesn't teach CSS as the proper medium
for suggesting presentation now is quite out of date.

If you happen to see the old tags, know what they mean, which,
structurally speaking, is usually not much as they date from an era
in which too many people thought of HTML tags as "formatting
commands" (this is what is meant by "tag soup").
Also, there are plenty of books and online examples on how to build
web pages using HTML. There are also plenty of books and online
examples on how to create CSS stylesheets. But, I have yet to see
any books on how to begin creating a website using ONLY CSS
stylesheets without using the "deprecated" code.


Are you sure you bought/borrowed the most current books on HTML?


Unfortunately, even the most modern books teach transitional allowing
use of deprecated tags. I teach an HTML/CSS class and must
continuously correct the book (I use the best I can find) as I teach
and expect strict code. I do agree that the student needs to be able
to recognize deprecated code, both so they can avoid using it, and they
know how to fix it if/when they come across it.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Jan 8 '06 #12

P: n/a
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Stan McCann wrote:
Unfortunately, even the most modern books teach transitional
allowing use of deprecated tags.
This is why I think it's important to teach the general principle of
the "separation of structural markup from presentation". That general
principle holds just as much in the TeX/LaTex field, where LaTeX is
supposed to be used for structural markup without reference to a
specific presentation, coupled to a "style file" which will do the
various presentation(s) which are needed; as it holds in
properly-taught use of MS Word, where the content will be styled by
applying the appropriate "paragraph" or "character" style from a
properly-defined style template, and the result readily adapted to
different presentation situations (e.g different paper sizes) by
changes to the style template, without (if the job has been properly
done) needing to touch the marked-up document content.

But, just exactly how to teach that is not a given: there are some
people who learn better from first principles before getting exposed
to the details of a particular method, whether it be LaTeX, MS Word,
or The Web; whereas others have difficulty in grasping abstract
principles even when the wind is in the best direction, and have to
start with some concrete examples before they can begin to get a
glimmering of there being an underlying plan.
I do agree that the student needs to be able to recognize deprecated
code, both so they can avoid using it, and they know how to fix it
if/when they come across it.


I know what you mean; but I see far too many examples of folks who
haven't even started to understand either the principles of this kind
of web design, nor the specifics of HTML-Strict plus CSS for styling,
who are demanding to be told "how can I convert *this* [lump of
/3.2-ish quasi-HTML, transparent positioning .GIFs, nested layout
tables, etc. etc.] into CSS?".

I'm always tempted to tell them: put that detail on one side for now -
*learn* the principles until you really understand them - along the
way, you'll want to make some *new* pages based on your understanding,
and get them rated by someone who knows their stuff - and then, and
only then, you'll be in a meaningful position to understand how to
re-engineer that legacy crud into something useful. In most cases, by
the time they're ready to do it, they'd probably decide that the most
effective way is to rip out all of the legacy markup and clutter, and
start again from scratch, if I'm not mistaken...

The number of times I've seen what was supposedly *intended* to be
HTML-Strict plus CSS, but was self-evidently just HTML/3.2-ish junk
that had been mangled into this different syntax without gaining any
of the real benefits of the "separation", convinces me that I'm right.
Can you say class="8ptverdana" ? - evidently *they* could, and with a
straight face!!! IMHO no-one who had truly grasped the principles
would ever do that.

sigh...
Jan 8 '06 #13

P: n/a
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:22:38 -0800, sonnystarks wrote:
Can you refer me to
a specific web page that has only the "necessary HTML," (linked to a CSS
stylesheet) so that I might "View source" to further understand your
reply?


http://www.csszengarden.com/ is a good place to see this and also to see
what css can do.

Cheers,

Ben

Jan 9 '06 #14

P: n/a
Good advice. Thanx

Jan 9 '06 #15

P: n/a
You are right. It is an excellent tutorial.

Jan 9 '06 #16

P: n/a
Are you sure you bought/borrowed the most current books on HTML?

Any suggestions that do not contain absolutely overwhelming detail
would be most appreciated.

Sonny

Jan 9 '06 #17

P: n/a
Excellent suggestion. I have examined the site and you are, indeed,
correct. It is a very good tutourial.

Jan 9 '06 #18

P: n/a
sonnystarks wrote:
Thus far, the consensus I have received has been exceptional! Insight
from three different individuals (I could still use more) is truly
invaluable than accepting one person's opinion as gospel. I would
appreciate your insight on the question as well.


I was commenting on the meaning of "consensus". A consensus is an
agreement, a common opinion or conclusion or decision among a group. A
gathering of an assortment of opinions, or comments by different people
on different aspects of a topic, is the opposite of a consensus.
Jan 9 '06 #19

P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "sonnystarks"
<si***********@comcast.net> writing in news:1136729009.717529.239420
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Are you sure you bought/borrowed the most current books on HTML?

Any suggestions that do not contain absolutely overwhelming detail
would be most appreciated.

Sonny


Sonny, you need to quote relavent text, and although you are using Google
Groups there is a way to do that. If you click on Options, you will be
able to quote the relavent text.

You see, this is Usenet, and not all servers keep messages for a long
time, so the person who is reading this has no idea to what you are
replying.

Better yet would be to get a decent news client.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Jan 10 '06 #20

P: n/a
Hi. I have been scratching my head all evening while reading and
coding. Can you please tell me what is wrong with this code and its
attached CSS? (The CSS is copied here for your convenience. It is
actually in a separate CSS file called "stylesht.css.")

Why am I not seeing the background referred to even though the jpg is
in the same folder? Why are the font values not reflected in the html
file I view even though I have followed the instructions, to the
letter, on attaching it to the CSS?

Thanx,
Sonny

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

<html>
<head>
<title>This is a test.</title>
<link rel=stylesheet type="text/css" href=stylesht.css>
</head>

<body><h1>This is a test.</h1>

</body>
</html>

--------------- Attached CSS reads: -------------------

<!..
body {background-image:(bgrng.jpg}
h1 {text-align:center; color:#cc9900;}
{font-size: 30%; font-family: serif}

-->

Jan 10 '06 #21

P: n/a
In our last episode,
<11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
the lovely and talented sonnystarks
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Hi. I have been scratching my head all evening while reading and
coding. Can you please tell me what is wrong with this code and its
attached CSS? (The CSS is copied here for your convenience. It is
actually in a separate CSS file called "stylesht.css.") Why am I not seeing the background referred to even though the jpg is
in the same folder? Why are the font values not reflected in the html
file I view even though I have followed the instructions, to the
letter, on attaching it to the CSS? Thanx,
Sonny <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html>
<head>
<title>This is a test.</title>
<link rel=stylesheet type="text/css" href=stylesht.css>
It is recommended to quote attribute values. This line says
look for the styles in another document: so what does "Attached"
mean below and what are the "<!.." and "-->" for?
</head> <body><h1>This is a test.</h1>

</body>
</html> --------------- Attached CSS reads: -------------------
What does "Attached" mean? It should be in a separate document?
<!..
What in the world was that for?
body {background-image:(bgrng.jpg}
You didn't close the parenthesis - and that is likely to scrub
the whole stylesheet. So don't ask about anything after this
line until this line is fixed. What is more, it should be:

body {background-image: url(bgrng.jpg); }

h1 {text-align:center; color:#cc9900;}
{font-size: 30%; font-family: serif}
What in the world is the last line supposed to be referring to?
-->


What in the world was that for?

You haven't downloaded the specs have you?

--
Lars Eighner us****@larseighner.com http://www.larseighner.com/
My mail reader can beat up your mail reader.
Jan 10 '06 #22

P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "sonnystarks"
<si***********@comcast.net> writing in news:1136866876.559897.189570
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
<!..
body {background-image:(bgrng.jpg}
h1 {text-align:center; color:#cc9900;}
{font-size: 30%; font-family: serif}

-->


body {background-image: url(bgrng.jpg)}

Additionally, always set a background color when using a background
image, for those who for whom the background does not display. For
example, if your background is very dark, and you are using light text,
and no background color is specified, someone not getting the image would
probably not be able to read the text.

This is also true for those who do not use white as their window
background color, so images that are supposed to be on white background
really stand out (badly) on my pale blue background.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Jan 10 '06 #23

P: n/a
On 8 Jan 2006 09:26:27 -0700, Stan McCann <me@stanmccann.us> wrote:
I teach an HTML/CSS class and must
continuously correct the book (I use the best I can find) as I teach
and expect strict code.


What is the current "best" book from this point of view?

I still use Lie & Bos' CSS book to teach HTML, because it's the only one
I know that really has the right attitude here. However being a CSS
book, it's obviously a bit limited for HTML, beyond that couple of
example pages.
Jan 10 '06 #24

P: n/a
sonnystarks wrote:
Hi. I have been scratching my head all evening while reading and
coding. Can you please tell me what is wrong with this code and its
attached CSS? (The CSS is copied here for your convenience. It is
actually in a separate CSS file called "stylesht.css.")

Why am I not seeing the background referred to even though the jpg is
in the same folder? Why are the font values not reflected in the html
file I view even though I have followed the instructions, to the
letter, on attaching it to the CSS?

Thanx,
Sonny

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
This is a partial doctype, which will invoke quirks mode.
Better is:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
--------------- Attached CSS reads: -------------------

<!..
Redundant and wrong (should be <!-- if present).
Historically people enclose embedded css & js in <!-- ... --> to avoid
very ancient (v3 or earlier?) browsers displaying it as text. Certainly
not required for linked (rather than embedded) css.
body {background-image:(bgrng.jpg}
h1 {text-align:center; color:#cc9900;}
Missing parenthesis.
Validators will tell you to always set foreground & background colours
together - if you choose light text & leave background to default, or
your user has images turned off, they may have a light background.
{font-size: 30%; font-family: serif}


Something missing here ?

Better to upload test.html or whatever (together with css, images etc)
to some public webserver, so that you can validate it (which you really
ought to do before asking here), and you can post the url for us to try
when you want help.

Chris
Jan 10 '06 #25

P: n/a
Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote in
news:lm********************************@4ax.com:
On 8 Jan 2006 09:26:27 -0700, Stan McCann <me@stanmccann.us> wrote:
I teach an HTML/CSS class and must
continuously correct the book (I use the best I can find) as I teach
and expect strict code.
What is the current "best" book from this point of view?


I'm sure it is not the best available but it is the best I've looked
at. This coming semster, I'll be using Web Developer Foundations:
Using XHTML. I provide links to some pages with the warnings of XHTML
vs. HTML along with lots of other material I've written or I can link
to with reasons to use strict rather than transitional.

I'm also pleased about the NMSUA website redesign which will be done
XHTML strict for incorporation later into a CMS. I can only take
partial credit for the new look and feel as it was done at our main
campus level (http://www.nmsu.edu) and I've modified it just enough to
maintain our branch campus identity (sample at http://alamo-
smccann.nmsu.edu) but to also look like we belong with NMSU.

I believe seeing the change as it happens will be good for my students.
I still use Lie & Bos' CSS book to teach HTML, because it's the only
one I know that really has the right attitude here. However being a
CSS book, it's obviously a bit limited for HTML, beyond that couple
of example pages.


I'm still looking for a "good" book. Maybe a CSS book is the way to go
because every (X)HTML book I've seen teaches the use of transitional
using deprecated elements.

This group and alt.html along with a few others (CSS and PHP) have had
strong influences on me and I pass along a lot of that influence to my
students. It's not too hard, after a while reading a group, to learn
who knows their stuff and who doesn't.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Jan 10 '06 #26

P: n/a
sonnystarks wrote:
.......... Can you refer me
to a specific web page that has only the "necessary HTML," (linked to a
CSS stylesheet) so that I might "View source" .........


My page http://jp29.org/ employs validated HTML 4.01 (strict) Markup
and validated CSS (no warnings or errors) via a linked style sheet.

My page http://jp29.org/test.php is written as an exemplar XHTML 1.0
(strict) document with validated Markup and validated CSS (no warnings
or errors) via a linked style sheet and includes notes relating to the
problems inherent in serving and rendering XHTML documents.

--
James Pickering

Jan 10 '06 #27

P: n/a

Stan McCann wrote:
In another of Sonny's replies, I also noted that he'd like to see some more sites
that properly seperate content and layout. I can't say that I'm the
best at it; I'm sure some can/will find some faults, but feel free to
look over my sites listed at http://surecann.com/


This is an excellent example of what I am looking for. It is a basic
web page with only the minimum tags and all else is included on the CSS
stylesheet. Now the question is... how do I view the actual stylesheet
so I can compare the two?

Jan 16 '06 #28

P: n/a

Adrienne Boswell wrote:
Sonny, you need to quote relavent text, and although you are using Google
Groups there is a way to do that. If you click on Options, you will be
able to quote the relavent text.
Did I get it correct this time? I went to options and there was no
"option" to "quote relevant text." I did however delete what I did not
want to appear again. I do apologize most sincerely for any
inconvenience.

Now, assuming I DID get it right, I'll ask my question again: I know
how to "View Source" on a particular web page but how do I see (look
at) the linked CSS sheet?
--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share


Jan 17 '06 #29

P: n/a
Nik
sonnystarks wrote:

Now, assuming I DID get it right, I'll ask my question again: I know
how to "View Source" on a particular web page but how do I see (look
at) the linked CSS sheet?

Beautiful ;-)

You will find the linked sheet referred to near the top of the page
source - this is from the page I happen to have open in my browser atm:

<link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet"
href="/onthisday/css/onthisdaystylesheet.css">

The leading '/' means that the URL is relative to the top of the domain,
in this case news.bbc.co.uk, so the url for the stylesheet is
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/css/...stylesheet.css

Putting this into the address bar of your browser will cause the browser
to request the file. It may then open it, or save it to disk, depending
on the settings applied.

HTH

Nik
Jan 17 '06 #30

P: n/a
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Nik wrote:
sonnystarks wrote:
Now, assuming I DID get it right, I'll ask my question again: I know
how to "View Source" on a particular web page but how do I see (look
at) the linked CSS sheet?

[..]
You will find the linked sheet referred to near the top of the page
source - this is from the page I happen to have open in my browser
atm:

<link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet"
href="/onthisday/css/onthisdaystylesheet.css">

The leading '/' means that the URL is relative to the top of the
domain, in this case news.bbc.co.uk, so the url for the stylesheet
is http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/css/...stylesheet.css


Ok; but, more conveniently, install Chris Pederick's web developer
toolbar (I'm assuming version 1.0) (Mozilla or FF), then you can use
its menu: CSS> View CSS.

http://chrispederick.com/work/webdeveloper/

One doesn't *have* to be a web developer to find it useful - it's also
handy for self-defence for reading over-intrusive web pages.
Jan 17 '06 #31

P: n/a
"sonnystarks" <si***********@comcast.net> writes:
Now, assuming I DID get it right, I'll ask my question again: I know
how to "View Source" on a particular web page but how do I see (look
at) the linked CSS sheet?


Others have explained how to follow the source code to look at the raw
CSS files. If you want to to see the net result of the included CSS
then you can run the page through the validator at

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
--
Pete Forman -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
WesternGeco -./\.- by myself and does not represent
pe*********@westerngeco.com -./\.- opinion of Schlumberger, Baker
http://petef.port5.com -./\.- Hughes or their divisions.
Jan 17 '06 #32

P: n/a

Pete Forman wrote:
Others have explained how to follow the source code to look at the raw
CSS files. If you want to to see the net result of the included CSS
then you can run the page through the validator at

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
--
Pete Forman


Thanx, Pete, but I get a "Page not found" message from that web
address.

Sonny

Jan 18 '06 #33

P: n/a
sonnystarks wrote:
Pete Forman wrote:
Others have explained how to follow the source code to look at the raw
CSS files. If you want to to see the net result of the included CSS
then you can run the page through the validator at

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
--
Pete Forman

Thanx, Pete, but I get a "Page not found" message from that web
address.


works for me ??

Chris
Jan 18 '06 #34

P: n/a

Alan J. Flavell wrote:


Ok; but, more conveniently, install Chris Pederick's web developer
toolbar (I'm assuming version 1.0) (Mozilla or FF), then you can use
its menu: CSS> View CSS.

http://chrispederick.com/work/webdeveloper/


Thanx. It works as advertised. Excellent plug-in and excellent
guidance.

Thanx again.

Sonny

Jan 19 '06 #35

P: n/a

So I guess now the question to all of you is this: Let's fast forward 2
or three years. What will a future student who knows absolutely nothing
about HTML and wants to learn how to hand-code websites study? What
books/guides should he/she be looking for (assuming CSS is included)?
Will they be learning only XHTML, XML, or still studying HTML with all
its depracated tags? One of the books I am presently studying ("A
beginner's Guide to HTML) was published in 2001 and it refers to CSS2
not being fully implemented and CSS3 on the horizen. Have we moved
forward at all? Your personal opinions are welcome.

Jan 19 '06 #36

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups .com>,
"sonnystarks" <si***********@comcast.net> wrote:
So I guess now the question to all of you is this: Let's fast forward 2
or three years. I am only a observer of this group, most certainly not one of the well
informed people who are helpful at answering questions. My original
pages didn't use much except text and a minimal subset of HTML. About
four or five years ago I spent a Xmas vacation asking questions here.
Thanks to replies here I added to many of my minimal HTML pages a
minimal subset of CSS1. However CSS was around long before I ever heard
about it.

This time I hope to add lots of photos. I now have lots more server
space. A majority of web surfers in this country finally have ADSL (and
so do I now). So now I want to make a lot more use of CSS, and maybe
add some Javascript.

The big changes to me seems to be that sites like CSS Zen Garden and
others exist, and show just how far you can go. Even people like me who
are not heavily into web design are finally noticing them, and can point
them out to others. And can try to do something along those lines. I
see lots of low cost, theme based web site generation packages. Most
don't seem to do a particularly clean job of their pages, but being able
to pick a theme and change the appearance of a site is getting to be
expected. Many minority interest word processing or light desktop
publishing packages are forcing the use of themes. I think all this is
helping gradually push the idea of styles out to a wider audience.

You can make a site that lets people pick to some extent how they want
your site to appear. I would hope that eventually this would simply be
something that is expected of a site.

Ajax doesn't seem to use anything we didn't have available a long time
ago, but several big and small companies are using it to put genuinely
useful applications on the web. RSS is now something expected of news
sites.

All these seem pointers to advances in the ultimate use of existing
technologies.
CSS2 not being fully implemented and CSS3 on the horizen. Have we moved
forward at all?


I think web pages are moving at an incredible pace. Building columns,
for instance, took thousands of years to move from tree trunks through
ornamental imitations of the leaves, limbs and roots to simple
structures without ornamentation imitating tree trunks. We have been
using fixed size paper and type for many centuries. Little wonder it is
taking a bit of time to move to the idea of flexible web pages.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Jan 20 '06 #37

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.