Re: A Newbie's Must-Have Library

[Peter Michaux]

On May 14, 8:55 pm, Prisoner at War <[e-mail]:

Well, in case anyone should need to know in the near future, here are
my recommendations for best beginner's books:

** Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML, Head First JavaScript **

Get it from the library. I cannot imagine needing to own an HTML book.
There are plenty of good references on the web. Understand that XHTML
is not for the general web. HTML is a better option.

I own Eric Meyer's "CSS: The Definitive Guide" and am glad that I do.
It is the best definitive guide I've read on any web topic.

"Bullet Proof Web Design" is the best book I've seen for learning
semantic HTML and separation of HTML and CSS. It is a really good
book. I borrowed it from the library.

Borrow "CSS Zen Garden" for some nice inspiration about what
separation of content and presentation can do.

Bookmark the w3c HTML and CSS validator web pages. Also bookmark the
HTML and CSS specifications.

David Flanagan's "javascript: The Definitive Guide" is still the best
JavaScript/Browser scripting reference I've read even with the errata.
There are lots of good ideas in other books but there are so many
flaws in all of the one's I've seen.

Print a copy of ECMAScript third edition pdf and study it at least
enough so you can find information when you need it.

Use JSLint for a while until you know what rules you like and don't
like.

Peter

[Prisoner at War]

On May 19, 12:12 am, Peter Michaux <[e-mail]:

>

Get it from the library. I cannot imagine needing to own an HTML book.
There are plenty of good references on the web.

Yes, but that's like saying, get your free meals at a soup kitchen.
Plenty of places where you can get free food.

It just isn't the same having a real book with you on the toilet, in
the subway, by the beside...and no, printouts won't cut it, either. I
think the very feel of paper, and all the other sensory stimuli, help
learning (or can, anyway, if only people wisened up to the fact). And
yes HTML is easy, and so is CSS, really (though much "harder" than
HTML, to be sure), but unless you have photographic memory or
something, it's good to have a resource handy which doesn't require
booting up the computer or waking it up from hibernation.

Understand that XHTML
is not for the general web. HTML is a better option.

HTML itself is supposed to be deprecated sooner or later...XHTML seems
similar enough (at least with regards to the markup I need to do for
myself) that I don't see what the problem is....

I own Eric Meyer's "CSS: The Definitive Guide" and am glad that I do.
It is the best definitive guide I've read on any web topic.

"Bullet Proof Web Design" is the best book I've seen for learning
semantic HTML and separation of HTML and CSS. It is a really good
book. I borrowed it from the library.

I've heard about these, and will check them out in the library. Mind
you, I'd first checked out most of these book that I own at/from the
library before purchasing them.

Borrow "CSS Zen Garden" for some nice inspiration about what
separation of content and presentation can do.

Yep, already on my list!

Bookmark the w3c HTML and CSS validator web pages. Also bookmark the
HTML and CSS specifications.

Already done!

David Flanagan's "javascript: The Definitive Guide" is still the best
JavaScript/Browser scripting reference I've read even with the errata.

I browsed this at the library but because it did not seem much of a
"tutorial" but a "reference work" I decided I would consult it later.

There are lots of good ideas in other books but there are so many
flaws in all of the one's I've seen.

Have you seen "Head First JavaScript" and "DOM Scripting"? Not too
many "flaws" -- I don't think there's even one in the latter!

Print a copy of ECMAScript third edition pdf and study it at least
enough so you can find information when you need it.

Hmmm, "ECMAScript Third Edition"?? Oh, you mean the "language
specifications"...the "white paper"...thanks, but that's too
"clinical" for me -- and the typical newbie!

Use JSLint for a while until you know what rules you like and don't
like.

Hey, cool! A JavaScript validator??? How's that work, I wonder!

But what do you mean by "what rules you like and don't like"?? It's
JavaScript 1.3, init -- take it or leave it!

Peter

[Henry]

On May 19, 6:24 am, Prisoner at War wrote:

On May 19, 12:12 am, Peter Michaux wrote:

<snip>

>There are lots of good ideas in other books but there are
so many flaws in all of the one's I've seen.

Have you seen "Head First JavaScript" and "DOM Scripting"?
Not too many "flaws" -- I don't think there's even one in
the latter!

<snip>

So you did fail to grasp the point about what exactly it is about
these books that you (as someone who is 'learning' form these books)
are in a position to judge. How would you recognise a flaw? Where
would you get the knowledge and experience necessary? Because you will
not getting that from the books themselves.

Consider that you posted the mark-up:-

<img name="image" id="image" src=pic1.gif"
onMouseOver="document.getElementById('image').src= 'pic2.gif';"
onMouseOut="document.getElementById('image').src=' pic1.gif';" />

- in a recent thread here. And even though the scripting there is
minimal that code is still a formulation for which there are two
better alternatives. You have not used the better alternatives because
your books have failed to inform you that they exist or failed to
inform you of how/why they would be better. That is a flaw, but it is
a flaw of omission, and you will not learn about an omission from the
text that omits.

[Andy Dingley]

On 19 May, 06:24, Prisoner at War <[e-mail]:

On May 19, 12:12 am, Peter Michaux <[e-mail]:

Understand that XHTML
is not for the general web. HTML is a better option.

HTML itself is supposed to be deprecated sooner or later...XHTML seems
similar enough

I thought you'd read Head First HTML? It's one of the few books that
gets this aspect right, and it certainly isn't how you describe.

[joebloe]

On May 18, 11:22 pm, Peter Michaux <[e-mail]:

On May 18, 10:24 pm, Prisoner at War <[e-mail]>
wrote:

HTML itself is supposed to be deprecated sooner or later

Nope. Google "HTML 5".

...XHTML seems
similar enough (at least with regards to the markup I need to do for
myself) that I don't see what the problem is....

It is quite similar but not the same as many people think.

XHTML was DOA. Hard to figure what the point was anyway. Does less,
broken in every browser.

Being able to flow text between DIVs would beat the heck out of a new
arrangement of /'s. Just my $.02.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

joebloe wrote:

On May 18, 11:22 pm, Peter Michaux <[e-mail]:

>On May 18, 10:24 pm, Prisoner at War <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>>HTML itself is supposed to be deprecated sooner or later

Nope. Google "HTML 5".

"HTML 5", however, is a subject of its own.

>>...XHTML seems
similar enough (at least with regards to the markup I need to do for
myself) that I don't see what the problem is....

It is quite similar but not the same as many people think.

XHTML was DOA. Hard to figure what the point was anyway. Does less,
broken in every browser.

Is this just a statement or is it an argument for which you can provide
evidence to back it up?

Being able to flow text between DIVs would beat the heck out of a new
arrangement of /'s. Just my $.02.

This would be presentational, so nothing a markup language should provide.
For example, Gecko supports the -moz-column-count property in CSS (used in
Wikipedia) that goes in that direction.

Followups trimmed to ciwah/s.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16

[Jason S]

On May 19, 2:22 am, Peter Michaux <[e-mail]:

More likely JavaScript 1.5. JSLint is not just a validation tool. It
is Douglas Crockford standing over your shoulder wagging his finger at
you when you do something he thinks is a poor practice. This sort of
peer review is great as it makes one reflect on his own practices. The
advice should not be taken without thinking about it first.

Peter

....which brings up his new book "javascript: the Good Parts"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS.../wrrrldwideweb.

Maybe not a book for novices, but it does point out a number of
(possible) best practices + some interesting core-language arcana.

I also have a copy of "PPK on Javascript" which is just about at the
other end of the spectrum: very focused on practical website use of
Javascript (whereas "javascript: the Good Parts" is almost a pure
language book w/ next to nothing about websites) w/o much complexity.

Both point out subtleties about the language, but in different ways. I
like both because they are *not* like many of the alternatives, which
are usually just a bunch of code listings for stupid little useless
web pages, and which seem to expect you to learn by copycat techniques.

[Prisoner at War]

On May 19, 3:40 pm, joebloe <[e-mail]:

>

XHTML was DOA. Hard to figure what the point was anyway. Does less,
broken in every browser.

Wow, really?? DOA?? Does less??? Broken in every browser????

I'm not sure about the point myself, but then again I'm a n00b so all
technical details just don't register with me.

Being able to flow text between DIVs would beat the heck out of a new
arrangement of /'s. Just my $.02.

See, there you go again with those technical details!

[Prisoner at War]

On May 19, 2:46 pm, Andy Dingley <[e-mail]:

>

I thought you'd read Head First HTML? It's one of the few books that
gets this aspect right, and it certainly isn't how you describe.

No, I didn't learn that from "Head First HTML"...I learned that from
the W3C! Isn't that their aim, to deprecate HTML?

[dorayme]

In article
<8c**********************************@z66g2000hsc. googlegroups.com>,
Prisoner at War <pr*************@yahoo.comwrote:

On May 19, 2:46 pm, Andy Dingley <[e-mail]:

I thought you'd read Head First HTML? It's one of the few books that
gets this aspect right, and it certainly isn't how you describe.

No, I didn't learn that from "Head First HTML"...I learned that from
the W3C! Isn't that their aim, to deprecate HTML?

No, it was not their aim to deprecate HTML. The only people I know that
want to do this are Iranian mullahs.

--
dorayme

[Scott Bryce]

Prisoner at War wrote:

True. My perspective of a "flaw" as a newbie, however, is somewhat
different than yours: I count the highest good of a how-to book to be
that it teaches me things which work. If the code runs, it's not a
flaw, though certainly one may argue that it's an inelegant solution
or even a dangerous one leading to problems in other contexts (etc.).

If the book you are using teaches bad practices that "work," then the
book is flawed. A newbie wouldn't understand why the code is flawed.
That can lead to newbies, who don't know better, writing insecure code,
or code that breaks with unexpected input.