# just starting



## khmerKurt (Oct 18, 2007)

i am trying to build a website - to have some freedom and SAVE $

tried apollo hosting with site symphony

either it is too difficult (big ? mark) or i just don't get it (possible)

i am not computer stupid, pretty good with most software

i have microsoft publisher (just got it with office suite)

could i use this?

SUGGESTIONS, COMMENTS, IDEAS - GREATLY APPRECIATED

ps. i am out of the office till tommorow - so slight delay in my reading comments


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

I would not use Microsoft Publisher and choose another web design tool. There are many that are freely available. I would look at Kompozer or CoffeeCup's HTML editor.

Peace...


----------



## Mr.LLB (May 27, 2008)

if your willing to buy......dreamweaver is one of the best webdesign tools out there


----------



## TheRobatron (Oct 25, 2007)

Although you could use Publisher, I would seriously discourage it. It's likely that your site will only work in IE and will probably look a bit tacky.

I would recommend learning XHTML and CSS, and if you are willing, buying Dreamweaver or using a free editor like Notepad++, or one that tomdkat suggested. Generally sites written by humans are better than those generated by GUI applications


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

Mr.LLB said:


> dreamweaver is one of the best webdesign tools out there


Got any evidence to support that claim?


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

TheRobatron said:


> I would recommend learning XHTML and CSS...<snip/>or using a free editor like Notepad++, or one that tomdkat suggested. Generally sites written by humans are better than those generated by GUI applications


I agree - apart from the *X*html...

@TheRobatron: _Why _do you "_recommend learning *X*HTML_"?


----------



## TheRobatron (Oct 25, 2007)

lavazza said:


> @TheRobatron: _Why _do you "_recommend learning *X*HTML_"?


Mainly because of the way it's written - I find the tag structure more logical than HTML. Also it supports external stylesheets (I'm not sure if HTML 4 does?). What makes you disagree?


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

TheRobatron said:


> Mainly because of the way it's written - I find the tag structure more logical than HTML


I think you'll find that, other than non-self-closing tags, the structure on almost all _*valid *_XHTML and HTML is, for all intents and purposes (from a logical perspective) identical



TheRobatron said:


> Also it supports external stylesheets (I'm not sure if HTML 4 does?)


CSS has been supported by HTML since version 3.2 (at least)



TheRobatron said:


> What makes you disagree?



Why most of us should NOT use XHTML


----------



## Mr.LLB (May 27, 2008)

@lavazza



> Got any evidence to support that claim?


got any evidence to go aganist it?


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

Mr.LLB said:


> got any evidence to go aganist it?


You are the one who made the claim... if you can't substantiate it, simply say so


----------



## TheRobatron (Oct 25, 2007)

lavazza said:


> I think you'll find that, other than non-self-closing tags, the structure on almost all _*valid *_XHTML and HTML is, for all intents and purposes (from a logical perspective) identical


There are some fundamental differences, other than self-closing tags, such as each element must have a root tag.



lavazza said:


> Why most of us should NOT use XHTML


Other than the article being very repetative, it makes an interesting point, but I write valid XHTML, and test it on 20 or more browsers and I have never had any problems.

As for Dreamweaver, I think most web designers will agree that it is one of the best applications available. I'd be interested to know if you've found a better one.


----------



## Mr.LLB (May 27, 2008)

> You are the one who made the claim... if you can't substantiate it, simply say so


if you can't say anything against it......it is assumed to be true!



> As for Dreamweaver, I think most web designers will agree that it is one of the best applications available. I'd be interested to know if you've found a better one.


thank you Robatron

Adobe is one of the leading developers. They have taken over Dreamweaver and enhanced it alot better.


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

TheRobatron said:


> > I think you'll find that, other than non-self-closing tags, the structure on almost all valid XHTML and HTML is, for all intents and purposes (from a logical perspective) identical
> 
> 
> There are some fundamental differences, other than self-closing tags, such as each element must have a root tag.


Please explain* how, from a logical perspective, this is relevant
------------------------
ETA
* bearing in mind the OP



TheRobatron said:


> Other than the article being very repetative, it makes an interesting point.


Indeed. One that Adobe either ignore or don't understand as they continue to flood the market with Dreamweaver, which - by default - implements an XHTML DOCTYPE and then promptly declares an html/text mime type 



TheRobatron said:


> Other than the article being very repetative, it makes an interesting point, but I write valid XHTML, and test it on 20 or more browsers and I have never had any problems.


Please provide a link to a site (it doesn't have to be one that you wrote) that illustrates the benefits of such XHTML



TheRobatron said:


> As for Dreamweaver, I think most web designers will agree that it is one of the best applications available.


Argument from popularity?



TheRobatron said:


> I'd be interested to know if you've found a better one.


What are your criteria for being "_one of the best applications available_"?


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

Mr.LLB said:


> if you can't say anything against it......it is assumed to be true!


Maybe in Fantasyland

Out here, in the real world, it is considered rather silly to simply accept unsubstantiated claims; i.e. ordinary claims require good old ordinary supporting evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence 

Please note: You made the claim. I'm simply asking _why _you made it

I'm here to learn and if you can teach me something, I will be sincerely grateful


----------



## TheRobatron (Oct 25, 2007)

lavazza said:


> Please provide a link to a site (it doesn't have to be one that you wrote) that illustrates the benefits of such XHTML


I don't have any sites that specifically demonstrate the benefits of XHTML, I just prefer it and I don't have any of the problems described in the article.



lavazza said:


> Argument from popularity?
> ...
> What are your criteria for being "_one of the best applications available_"?


I'm not sure many people have the time to explain all the benefits of Dreamweaver, but it is generally accepted as _the_ web design application. If you don't agree with that, it's fine, but many if not most professionals use it. That is an argument from popularity, and popularity normally means that the product works.


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

XHTML or HTML, which ever one you like, they are pretty similar to each other now, however when HTML 5 comes out and xhtml 2 comes out we might see differences then.


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

TheRobatron said:


> I don't have any sites that specifically demonstrate the benefits of XHTML


This doesn't surprise me... I have been looking, on and off, for maybe three years now and I have yet to find any sites that eXtend HTML with XHTML



TheRobatron said:


> I just prefer it


Considering that you were unaware of CSS support from HTML3.2 onwards... I wonder how you know that you "_prefer_" it




TheRobatron said:


> I don't have any of the problems described in the article.


Cool 

My point was aimed at the OP (a beginner, considering Publisher as a development tool), in the hope that they, too, will avoid the unnecessary problems inherent in so-called WYSIWYGs that not only implement XHTML for no good reason but do so wrongly



TheRobatron said:


> I'm not sure many people have the time to explain all the benefits of Dreamweaver


I didn't ask for an explanation of the benefits of Dreamweaver

I asked for '_your criteria for being "one of the best applications available"?_'

My criteria, now that I think about it, focus on _*return on investment*_; purchase price of the app, learning curve in using the app, maintainability, future proofing, cross platform/browser accessibility of the resultant code, etc



TheRobatron said:


> popularity normally means that the product works.


Maybe

It can also mean that the marketing machine behind the product works even better


----------



## Mr.LLB (May 27, 2008)

Around 65% (2006) of web designers use Dreamweaver to make their websites, according to research by *Actinic Web Design and Ecommerce Report 2006.* <<<<check them out, I know you wont believe me and like to argue, but read for your self.

65% = majority. 51% is considered a majority but we have 65% here. Think about this for a second. Either majority of us, as in people who use dreamweaver are dumb, OR there is something inherently beneficial about Dreamweaver. And I know now you are going to ask me "what is inherently bnefical about Dreamweaver," but before you do, let me answer it. Read the manual, program features at Adobe.com and you'll know.


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

Mr.LLB said:


> Around 65% (2006) of web designers use Dreamweaver to make their websites, according to research by *Actinic Web Design and Ecommerce Report 2006.* <<<<check them out, I know you wont believe me and like to argue, but read for your self.


OK... I checked 'em out:

*www.actinic.co.uk/index.shtml*


> ```
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
> ```


Yeah... right... so... they know what they're talking about, huh? 

*www.actinic.co.uk/Actinic_Web_Design_Report_2006.pdf *



> *Introduction*
> This document comprises a summary and data from the Web Design & Ecommerce Survey commissioned by Actinic, to monitor web site-building and ecommerce trends among web designers.
> The research was based on interviews conducted in early 2006 with* 80 web design
> companies*. The sample was selected at random from an independent database and not restricted to web design companies involved in ecommerce (although all those interviewed proved to have built at least one ecommerce site for a client); so some general conclusions about the web design market can be drawn.
> The research was conducted by pfa Research, www.pfa-research.com





Mr.LLB said:


> 65% = majority. 51% is considered a majority but we have 65% here.


Yep... I can do maths... and stats... 65% of 80 is diddly squat



Mr.LLB said:


> Think about this for a second.


This might come as a surprise to you, but I have been thinking about it, on and off, for around six years so far



Mr.LLB said:


> Either majority of us, as in people who use dreamweaver are dumb, OR there is something inherently beneficial about Dreamweaver.


It ain't an either/or... there are many and varied reasons why otherwise intelligent people persist with products that are inefficient



Mr.LLB said:


> And I know now you are going to ask me "what is inherently bnefical about Dreamweaver,"


Nope... I wouldn't... simply cos it's patently obvious you haven't a clue



Mr.LLB said:


> Read the manual, program features at Adobe.com and you'll know


I'm not going to waste my time reading the manual when I can, in around 3 seconds, see for myself that the authors are talking out their fundamental orifice:

www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver


> ```
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
> ...


*w3C: [Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.adobe.com/products*


> *This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!*
> Result: Failed validation, 22 Errors




Experts, huh? Writing "_something inherently beneficial_", huh?

More a case of the blind leading the blind


----------



## Mr.LLB (May 27, 2008)

> 65% of 80 is diddly squat


still a majority.....so your math is wrong



> there are many and varied reasons why otherwise intelligent people persist with products that are inefficient


give me some



> Nope... I wouldn't... simply cos it's patently obvious you haven't a clue


common sense.....why else would i be arguing here if i dont know what i am talking about??



> I'm not going to waste my time reading the manual when I can, in around 3 seconds,


try reading it in 3 seconds....and you'll realize that your not as good as you think...


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

@lavazza:

While I don't recommend writing html in a wysiwyg editor, Dreamweaver is one of the better WYSIWYG html editors out there, probably the best.

also, currently, for the most part html == xhtml except for the doctype, self-closing tags and a couple other things - as xhtml is rarely sent with the xhtml doctype.

So using one or the other for now doesn't make much of a difference and really isn't such a strong point to argue over.

Whether or not someone should use the strict or transitional doctype is a better point to argue.


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

Mr.LLB said:


> still a majority.....so your math is wrong


My maths is fine thanks
What is wrong, I suspect, is your endorsement of the results from a survey of only *80 *businesses
If it was 65% of *800 *businesses, I would be prepared to consider the results as indicative
If it was 65% of *8,000* businesses, I would be inclined to consider the results as conclusive - with the proviso that the methodology of the survey was transparent

Please note: the Actinic report does NOT draw any conclusions. Instead, it simply publishes results of the survey, one of which - curiously - seems to contradict your claim


> 3.1.1. Macromedia Dreamweaver appears to be losing market share in the web design market. The percentage of web designers naming Dreamweaver as their favoured web design tool has declined from 76% to 65% in two years. At the same time, no clear challenger has emerged. Rather, web designers increasingly seem to wholly or partially *hand-code sites*, using a variety of different tools and utilities.


Hoist by ones own petard?



Mr.LLB said:


> > there are many and varied reasons why otherwise intelligent people persist with products that are inefficient
> 
> 
> give me some


OK

Marketing:
the VHS vs BetaMax wars

Habit: :
cigarette smoking

Complacency:
Windows




Mr.LLB said:


> common sense.....why else would i be arguing here if i dont know what i am talking about??


You're _not arguing_. Instead you are being obstinate, having made a claim for which you are incapable of substantiating. Please note: *I ain't saying you're wrong.* All I'm saying is that you have yet to provide convincing evidence that you're right; i.e. I see no reason to be swayed by one 80-business survey (from 2006) of a sector that has (today) 9,996 members in one organisation alone



Mr.LLB said:


> try reading it in 3 seconds....and you'll realize that your not as good as you think...


Perhaps I ought to explain the relevance, to me at least, of the links I posted above...


lavazza said:


> www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver


To me, the first 5 lines in the source code behind this page illustrates that Dreamweaver is so brutish *that *Dreamweaver's own website developers fail to comply with industry standards



lavazza said:


> w3C: [Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.adobe.com/products


To me, this result illustrates *how* Dreamweaver's own website developers fail to comply with industry standards

What remains a mystery, to me, is *why* Dreamweaver's own website developers fail to comply with industry standards and *why* you endorse Dreamweaver


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

MMJ said:


> While I don't recommend writing html in a wysiwyg editor


I agree 



MMJ said:


> Dreamweaver is one of the better WYSIWYG html editors out there, probably the best.


To me, that is like saying that '_Blue Widgets is one of the better brands of cigarettes, probably the best_', insofar as there aren't any good cigarettes and there aren't any good WYSIWYGs - simply because there aren't (yet) any WYSIWYGs... maybe one day Amaya will change that



MMJ said:


> also, currently, for the most part html == xhtml except for the doctype, self-closing tags and a couple other things


Again, I agree.

Please note: I have asked for - but have to be provided with - just one link to a site that eXtends HTML with XHTML



MMJ said:


> xhtml is rarely sent with the xhtml doctype.


Indeed. And this is, in essence the point I was trying to make to the OP, a newbie to HTML who may well have been scared off by all this tangential bickering. If so, I apologise for my part in it



MMJ said:


> So using one or the other for now doesn't make much of a difference and really isn't such a strong point to argue over.


Unless your visitors are using IE6, which - according to Ian Hickson - "_does not support XHTML at all_"



MMJ said:


> Whether or not someone should use the strict or transitional doctype is a better point to argue.


Oh yes... now we're talkin'!


----------



## TheRobatron (Oct 25, 2007)

lavazza said:


> Considering that you were unaware of CSS support from HTML3.2 onwards... I wonder how you know that you "_prefer_" it


I'm not an idiot. I did know HTML supported styles - I was unsure of whether it supported external style sheets. And as it has been said, there isn't much difference. I learnt XHTML and I write XHTML. Where's the problem?

As for the Dreamweaver debate, I really don't see why there is a debate at all as you haven't actually presented an opposing view other than saying it isn't the best application...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

I think lavazza's point is DreamWeaver being as *popular* as it is doesn't necessarily mean it's "the best" at what it does. lavazza's looking for something "tangible" supporting DreamWeaver being classified as "the best".

My unsolicited two cents: if DreamWeaver can be afforded, go ahead and buy it. There will be PLENTY of support resources available and it certainly does have a _lot_ of capability and functionality. I don't know if it's actually worth the cost but I guess that's a matter of "value" to the buyer.

Peace...


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

TheRobatron said:


> Where's the problem?


I have no idea

All I asked is for an explanation of _"Why you 'recommend learning XHTML'?"_

So far, you haven't explained, other than to say:

it's all you have ever known (at least this is what I have inferred - if I'm wrong, please don't hesitate to tell me) 
you "_find the tag structure more logical than HTML_" - but you haven't said why or how you find it _more_ logical, other than "_each element must have a root tag_", which is something I do not understand

Furthermore, when asked, you say that "_you don't have any sites that specifically demonstrate the benefits of XHTML_"

Maybe I'm blind, but I really can't see how you feel justified in recommending - to a newbie - a DOCTYPE that has no future



> XHTML may well just be a dead-end technology anyway. The browser companies (Mozilla, Opera, KDE, Apple) are not interested in pursuing XHTML and have put their efforts towards WHAT-WG and its plans for "HTML 5". Microsoft is not interested in XHTML either, prefering XAML/Avalon (its proprietary solution).
> 
> Mozilla's Web Author FAQ offers a clear recommendation for those undecided between HTML 4.01 and XHTML:
> 
> ...





TheRobatron said:


> As for the Dreamweaver debate, I really don't see why there is a debate at all


Ermmm...

You're the one implying - without any supporting evidence - that it has benefits:


TheRobatron said:


> I'm not sure many people have the time to explain all the benefits of Dreamweaver


I'm the one posting links - none of which you have refuted - that illustrate that, especially for newbies, it's not worth the expense

For a minute, I wondered if you had followed the link to Ian Hickson' s article



TheRobatron said:


> makes an interesting point


It seems like you have



TheRobatron said:


> you haven't actually presented an opposing view other than saying it isn't the best application...


If you can't join the dots from there onwards, I doubt if I can help

And, to be honest, until you actually make some effort to counter any of the points I have presented against XHTML and/or WYSIWYGs, I can't be bothered trying


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

tomdkat said:


> I think lavazza's point is DreamWeaver being as *popular* as it is doesn't necessarily mean it's "the best" at what it does. lavazza's looking for something "tangible" supporting DreamWeaver being classified as "the best".
> 
> My unsolicited two cents: if DreamWeaver can be afforded, go ahead and buy it. There will be PLENTY of support resources available and it certainly does have a _lot_ of capability and functionality. I don't know if it's actually worth the cost but I guess that's a matter of "value" to the buyer.
> 
> Peace...


Thank you tomdkat

I am simply asking WHY anyone would recommend a standards breaking application, that retails for around the cost of a mid-range laptop, to a newbie who starts a thread saying


khmerKurt said:


> i am trying to build a website - to have some freedom and SAVE $


I assume (quite possibly incorrectly) that khmerKurt's post implies 

the *freedom *to create files that are accessible to as wide an audience as possible

the *freedom* to spend as little time as possible maintaining those files

the desire to "*SAVE $*" precludes wasting money on web development apps
There are many *free *(as in _speech _and _lunch_)


 cross-platform tools  available for download

free tutorials

forums 
Together, they can _and do_ provide all the resources a newbie needs to get started - heading in the _*right *_direction


----------



## TheRobatron (Oct 25, 2007)

Free design tools were suggested at the start of the topic...
As for XHTML/HTML I'm not going to bother explaining why I use XHTML any more. If you or anyone else wants to use HTML rather than XHTML that's fine, but it's not a dead Doctype and it's a perfectly valid markup language. In response to the article you posted, see here. It is not invalid to send XHTML as text/html, the browser will just interpret it as HTML. See here for more advantages.

P.S. Ever seen the *edit* feature? It means you don't have to double/triple post.


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

TheRobatron said:


> As for XHTML/HTML I'm not going to bother explaining why I use XHTML any more.


You mean you started? 



TheRobatron said:


> In response to the article you posted, see here


Yeah... I've read it... including the bit about IE, which - alas - is still a dominant player in the desktop browser market

*Does Microsoft Internet Explorer accept the media type application/xhtml+xml?*


> No. However, there is a trick that allows you to serve XHTML1.0 documents to Internet Explorer as application/xml.


How many newbies read - let alone understand - that before they start?



TheRobatron said:


> See here for more advantages


Ermm... you link to a page written in HTML 4.01 Transitional loose to illustrate the benefits of XHTML ?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating

I'd rather see just ONE site that eXtends HTML with XHTML


----------



## TheRobatron (Oct 25, 2007)

So are you saying XHTML is an unsuitable langauge for newbies?

And what do you mean by


> I'd rather see just ONE site that eXtends HTML with XHTML


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

TheRobatron said:


> So are you saying XHTML is an unsuitable langauge for newbies?


No

What I am saying is it is inappropriate to recommend, _*to newbies*_, a $US399 application that implements an xhtml DOCTYPE and declares a text/html MIME type - _*by default*_



TheRobatron said:


> And what do you mean by
> 
> 
> > I'd rather see just ONE site that eXtends HTML with XHTML


I mean that I won't be convinced that XHTML is a worthwhile DOCTYPE by reading XHTML Advantages and Future by Gary Hess, a poet whose own site neither eXtends HTML, nor validates

However... if you or anyone else can post even *one link* to a site that DOES eXtend HTML via XHTML, then I might at least start to accept that its worth further investigation


----------



## TheRobatron (Oct 25, 2007)

I meant what exactly do you mean by "eXtend HTML with XHTML" (is the capital X important?)


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

TheRobatron said:


> I meant what exactly do you mean by "eXtend HTML with XHTML" (is the capital X important?)


Well... that's a curious question, coming from an advocate of XHTML

The X stands for extensibility as in combining the benefits of HTML and XML, mark-up 'language' that:


> allows designers to create their own customized tags, enabling the definition, transmission, validation, and interpretation of data between applications and between organizations.
> 
> Source: webopedia


See also: w3c Extensibility

As I say, I have yet to see ONE site that uses XHTML to extend HTML. This is not to say they don't exist... just that I ain't seen any... yet


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

lavazza said:


> To me, that is like saying that '_Blue Widgets is one of the better brands of cigarettes, probably the best_', insofar as there aren't any good cigarettes and there aren't any good WYSIWYGs - simply because there aren't (yet) any WYSIWYGs... maybe one day Amaya will change that


Best of the worst, then. 

The fact is people are going to be using WYSIWYG html editors for a long time, if not as long as the web dev world exists. You gotta accept it, even if you don't like it.



lavazza said:


> Unless your visitors are using IE6, which - according to Ian Hickson - "_does not support XHTML at all_"


That article was written back in 2002, the only browser that is applicable now that was applicable then is IE6 (not for much longer though, i hope). So most (if not all) of his "xhtml-cons" are moot.

Bur seriously, as I said twice before, the difference of using xhtml (text/html mime-type) or html is really small.

So, imo, it really doesn't make sense to be strongly pro-xhtml or anti-xhtml.

If somebody asked me which one they should use I would tell them xhtml, I like that tags are lower case and some attributes aren't allowed on certain elements, I find that that makes more sense.


----------



## TheRobatron (Oct 25, 2007)

MMJ said:


> I like that tags are lower case and some attributes aren't allowed on certain elements, I find that that makes more sense.


Exactly why I use XHTML 

I'm not against HTML, and I'm not saying XHTML is necessarily better, but I prefer XHTML.


----------



## eXaByTe (Jun 8, 2008)

XHTML and CSS are web standards compliant. So it is the best way to go.

If you are going to start web development I would recommend going to here or here and learning XHTML and CSS. Also you will need a good text editor here is one I recommend.


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

MMJ said:


> The fact is people are going to be using WYSIWYG html editors for a long time


Yep, I know

However, I see no point whatsoever in advising newbies to set off blindly, oblivious to the 'hacks' that are necessary to make xhtml work in IE6, IE7 _*and*_ IE8 



MMJ said:


> Bur seriously, as I said twice before, the difference of using xhtml (text/html mime-type) or html is really small.


Apart from the biggies 



MMJ said:


> I like that tags are lower case


That's no reason to promote xhtml over html, which supports (if not enforces) lower case tags



MMJ said:


> some attributes aren't allowed on certain elements


Please identify one (or more) attributes that 

are _*not *_allowed in xhtml 
are allowed in html4.01 strict


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

lavazza said:


> Yep, I know
> 
> However, I see no point whatsoever in advising newbies to set off blindly, oblivious to the 'hacks' that are necessary to make xhtml work in IE6, IE7 _*and*_ IE8


I'm talking about sending it with the text/html mime type, not the correct one.



lavazza said:


> Apart from the biggies





MMJ said:


> Bur seriously, as I said twice before, the difference of using xhtml (text/html mime-type) or html is really small.





lavazza said:


> That's no reason to promote xhtml over html, which supports (if not enforces) lower case tags


No, upper case tags are fine in html.



lavazza said:


> Please identify one (or more) attributes that
> 
> are _*not *_allowed in xhtml
> are allowed in html4.01 strict


I told you xhtml and html are very similar


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Ok, here's a question. What is the _advantage_ of advising someone new to HTML design to use XHTML over HTML 4? Is the assumption that they will actually try to learn XHTML and therefore "good" web design behavior by virtue of adhering to web standards closely? Or is the point to get them to use a XHTML DOCTYPE and not bother to make sure they are actually doing XHTML development correctly? What about the use of tables for page layout in XHTML?

Getting back to DreamWeaver, if it's configured to generate XHTML code will it actually prevent you from violating XHTML rules?

Ok, so that's more than one question. 

Peace...


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

tomdkat said:


> Ok, here's a question. What is the _advantage_ of advising someone new to HTML design to use XHTML over HTML 4?


*Supplementary Question:*
What is the _disadvantage_ of advising someone new to HTML design to use HTML4.01 Strict over XHTML (1.0 or 1.1)?



tomdkat said:


> Getting back to DreamWeaver, if it's configured to generate XHTML code will it actually prevent you from violating XHTML rules?


On the contrary 

Dreamweaver is configured to generate XHTML code in such a way that it actually forces newbies (and, evidently, way too many intermediates) to violate XHTML rules

Saying "the difference of using xhtml (text/html mime-type) or html is really small" once, twice or a gazillion times don't make it true; unless you're happy to implement a doctype on one line and then completely over-ride it's rules two or three lines later


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

> Saying "the difference of using xhtml (text/html mime-type) or html is really small" once, twice or a gazillion times don't make it true


saying it doesn't make it true, but it is true. 



> Dreamweaver is configured to generate XHTML code in such a way that it actually forces newbies (and, evidently, way too many intermediates) to violate XHTML rules


Yeah, no dolphins are going to die because of this though.


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

MMJ said:


> saying it doesn't make it true, but it is true.


OK... I'll try to alleviate the confusion I've caused...

Saying "the difference of using xhtml (text/html mime-type) or html is really small" _*to newbies*_ makes as much sense as saying ""the difference of carrying an umbrella under your left arm whilst racing a mountain bike is really small" - you're advocating carrying a bunch of excess baggage, which they don't understand, and if when they crash, the damn thing is liable to make matters much worse



MMJ said:


> Yeah, no dolphins are going to die because of this though.


Maybe not 

However, _no_ newbies are going to learn how to write valid, cross-platform, cross-browser mark-up _any_ faster

Furthermore, some (perhaps most?) newbies will progress _*more slowly*_ than if they started with HTML4.01 STRICT

Why advocate that?


----------



## TheRobatron (Oct 25, 2007)

tomdkat said:


> What is the _advantage_ of advising someone new to HTML design to use XHTML over HTML 4?





lavazza said:


> What is the _disadvantage_ of advising someone new to HTML design to use HTML4.01 Strict over XHTML (1.0 or 1.1)?


I don't think there are massive advantages or disadvantages either way (yet), I'm just saying that I prefer XHTML and there is nothing wrong with newbies learning it. I get the impression that you think any newbie learning XHTML will write messy, non standards compliant code. This isn't true - I started by learning XHTML and my code validates fine. Even as a newbie, wasn't 'misled' by the 'wrong' mime type.

It really doesn't matter if newbies don't understand that they are sending the code using the wrong mime type (oh the horror) because the difference is so small. When they get more experienced, they will understand it, and use it anyway.


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

TheRobatron said:


> I get the impression that you think any newbie learning XHTML will write messy, non standards compliant code.


Almost... I think, no... I know that most newbies and, sadly, far too many 'advanced developers (e.g. your friends at adobe.com) write messy, bloated, hard-to-maintain, non standards compliant mark-up



TheRobatron said:


> This isn't true - I started by learning XHTML and my code validates fine. Even as a newbie, wasn't 'misled' by the 'wrong' mime type.


Please note: one anecdote does not count as conclusive evidence in support of butchering a doctype

If you want to know what's "_true"_, try doing some research... Google is your friend


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

TheRobatron said:


> I don't think there are massive advantages or disadvantages either way (yet), I'm just saying that I prefer XHTML and there is nothing wrong with newbies learning it. I get the impression that you think any newbie learning XHTML will write messy, non standards compliant code. This isn't true - I started by learning XHTML and my code validates fine. Even as a newbie, wasn't 'misled' by the 'wrong' mime type.


That's cool, I've got no problem with your preferring XHTML. If nothing else, this debate (I guess) has demonstrated there's currently no "real" or "practical" reason for someone new to start out with XHTML (and probably or even likely NOT learning what we would hope they would learn) instead of HTML 4 (and probably or even likely NOT learning what we would hope they would learn. At least in the case of HTML 4, they should have an easier time getting their page or site developed since HTML 4 is less restrictive than XHTML.



> It really doesn't matter if newbies don't understand that they are sending the code using the wrong mime type (oh the horror) because the difference is so small. When they get more experienced, they will understand it, and use it anyway.


I think it does matter since those choosing which level of HTML or XHTML they are going to develop the site in really *do* need to be aware of these kinds of things. In my mind, this is similar to choosing the correct DOCTYPE, which we know can cause problems. The MIME type instructs the browser just as the DOCTYPE does. If you give the browser incorrect instructions, it will appear to misbehave when it actually could behaving simply as instructed.

I think the BEST advice for a newbie is to spend some time learning about HTML and web design _before_ attempting to design a page. This way, they will be aware of cross-browser compatibility issues and design their site accordingly.

Peace...


----------



## TheRobatron (Oct 25, 2007)

tomdkat said:


> I think the BEST advice for a newbie is to spend some time learning about HTML and web design _before_ attempting to design a page. This way, they will be aware of cross-browser compatibility issues and design their site accordingly.


The best approach for a lot of things is to learn the theory behind it first :up:


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

TheRobatron said:


> The best approach for a lot of things is to learn the theory behind it first :up:


Cool!

At last we agree on something!


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

lavazza said:


> OK... I'll try to alleviate the confusion I've caused...
> 
> Saying "the difference of using xhtml (text/html mime-type) or html is really small" _*to newbies*_ makes as much sense as saying ""the difference of carrying an umbrella under your left arm whilst racing a mountain bike is really small" - you're advocating carrying a bunch of excess baggage, which they don't understand, and if when they crash, the damn thing is liable to make matters much worse


I'm not talking to newbies about the difference between html & xhtml...



lavazza said:


> Maybe not
> 
> However, _no_ newbies are going to learn how to write valid, cross-platform, cross-browser mark-up _any_ faster
> 
> ...


This is too hard to prove and either way its incorrect at least in my case. I learned the xhtml way of writing html and I found that it helped my learn html faster.


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

XHTML vs HTML FAQ

Great stuff.


----------



## lavazza (May 15, 2006)

MMJ said:


> XHTML vs HTML FAQ
> 
> Great stuff.


Indeed!



*Should I use XHTML or HTML?*


> That depends on who you ask. There are a number of technical issues with this question, which preclude a simple and short answer. In reality,* the latest W3C recommendation with widespread support is HTML 4.01. Unless you actually need any of the features that XHTML offers over HTML, there is no technical reason to use XHTML.*
> 
> In order to actually benefit from using XHTML, you really need to understand the fundamental differences between XHTML and HTML. *Such a site will only be available to a small minority of the surfing population, however.*
> 
> ...


So... how many newbies are going to know how to implement let alone need "_any of the features that XHTML offers over HTML_"?


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

In all my posts I am referring to xhtml with the text/hrml mime-type.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

MMJ said:


> In all my posts I am referring to xhtml with the text/hrml mime-type.


After reading that article, it sounds like you *have* to do this until IE starts supporting XHTML.

Peace...


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

tomdkat said:


> After reading that article, it sounds like you *have* to do this until IE starts supporting XHTML.
> 
> Peace...


Of course.

Theres lots of pages out there with an xhtml doctype (this page, for example), however pretty much none use the correct mime type or put the xml (<?xml...) tag at the beginning.


----------

