Are you REALLY using valid code, or just getting "validated"?

[bronzemonkey]

And, like I said, I "miss" target=_blank, but realize that valid code is much more important.

 

Valid code isn't more important than delivering content and interfaces to users in a logical, accessible, and usable manner. It just happens that using valid code in this instance (and most) delivers that. 

[prime]

There are valid standards I don't like, but seriously whats the option, we either follow the standards or we go back to days like i.e versus netscape, where you have to code for each individual browser.

 

now we only have the problem child I.E (which I'd lilke to pretend doesn't exist tbh) most of the other browsers like firefox and opera support standards pretty good.

 

So I'd hoestly say standards are important even if you don't like the standards

 

The one main issue I have is I think there should stay a sor tof transitional html that beginners can get into a bit easier. I was lucky when I first started learning html stylesheets weren't neccessary yet, now that I am more advanced I love the extra power they give.

 

But what I am saying is I'd like say html beginner doctype that does support at least some simple font types and such to remain in force, just to make it easier for future web designed to learn with.... Until they become confortable to start doing stylesheets

[bronzemonkey]

There are valid standards I don't like

 

such as...

 

And there is no valid case for reworking html/css to cater for people who aren't prepared to take the basic steps required to learn it. Using inline styles, font tags, tables, and a whole host of other mess only serves to confuse and hold-back the novice, to clutter the web with poorly designed and badly functioning sites, and will only further reduce the rate of progress. Clean and structured html is MUCH easier to understand and keeping styles separate (either in stylesheets or in the head) is also the most intuitive approach. As a beginner, I learnt using html 4.01 strict and css stylesheets...I don't think I'd have a clue what is going on in those enormous table sites with inline styles and font tags all over the place. They are ridiculously over complex and counter-intuitive.

 

 

[prime]

Well personaly for my own ease of use and and complete standards I'd say scrict doctype would be the only type allowed and any non-conformed code will just not allow the site to operate at all. That'd solve the whole issue completely.

 

Truth is though, web design is getting more complex, these days html, and css on their own are just for amateeurs who have no idea, PHP or another powerful server side scripting along with XML and AJAX is a must. otherwise your just a two bit amateur

 

But there are people outthere who are learning and want to be able to create basic stuff without spending years learning before they can do anything at all.

 

I'm just saying it'd be good to keep something around so they could stay interested or motivated until they become at least competent.

 

[prime]

Another thing I'd do if I had a say is get rid of dreamweaver and other wysiwyg editors.

 

They hold people back from learning genuine web design ability. Not to mention make a mess out of any code they touch

 

 

[prime]

Dang I wish we had longer when we could edit, as I would of just edited this into the previous post

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

BTW I'm not saying rework it.

 

Im just saying keep a basic doctype for html around or something where only a few presentational elements are allowed.

 

In a few years when even html 5 is ancient history, browsers won't be supporting any kind of presentation markup at all I imagine. Though even the one's that are learning now will be ready for then, as I imagine we'll have a wee bit of time. It'll make it harder for the people that are just starting out at that point in time.

 

Now if a basic doctype declarion were kept. The people just starting to learn at that time, will be able to still do something until they can become competent.

[ToonMariner]

I don't think browser will abandon old doc types.  We don't want to get to a situation where the only people capable of generating a website are skill pros.  The internet is for all and as such anyone must be ablt to knock up a page quickly - this will obviously mean using nasty markup etc etc.  So in that situation we will still have to accomodate those sites.

 

What we are really addressing are the sites that are built to serve all.  It is those sites that pro developers will produce; and with an eye on producing good looking, well functioning and crossbrowser/platform compatible sites.  This is where the standards will take the web.  The technology of the future will change - xhtml will be served as intended (despite the fact that in terms of site function the present technology's implementations don't hit the right note and yet xhtml pages still work and look good etc etc).

 

What the standards provide developers is the tools and confidence to ensure their sites are future proof - unlike the days when we had to produce completely separate markup for netscape and ie - remember how bad that was??

 

 

[bronzemonkey]

Well personally for my own ease of use and and complete standards I'd say scrict doctype would be the only type allowed and any non-conformed code will just not allow the site to operate at all. That'd solve the whole issue completely.

 

No it wouldn't. What are you supposed to do if your CMS inserts a small coding error? What about if a visitor comments on your article and makes a mistake with an html tag? What about if you haven't replaced every single & with & in your or visitors links? Is your page supposed to not render at all? It's just not practical.

 

It's pretty simple really - people should learn to use html/css the way that it was intended. But the system is forgiving if they are making errors as browsers will try to work out what is really meant to be happening. There is no need to dumb it down at all.

 

Truth is though, web design is getting more complex, these days html, and css on their own are just for amateurs who have no idea, PHP or another powerful server side scripting along with XML and AJAX is a must. otherwise your just a two bit amateur.

 

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. Wed design is not the same as coding or programming. Using html, xml, css, javascript, php, etc does not make you a designer. It is ridiculous to claim that only using css/html is for "amateurs" (just after you've said that it is too difficult for amateurs to learn) - the vast majority of sites out there rely on an html/css core and most small sites need nothing else. Larger sites use a CMS, I even use a CMS (without knowing a huge amount about php), but it still relies on an html/css template that someone made and that browsers use.

[prime]

for any of the more serious sites though, scripting with database support is a must. Most designers also design their own cms to go with the site. And most clients want a CMS designed into the site.

 

I don't want to get into an argument here over what is needed for base design anyhow, that's something a lot of people have different opinions about anyhow.

 

What I am concerned about myself is that it's going to be harder for new people to get into the act and start learning themselves. And seriously we should cater for that as well.

 

 

[prime]

I'm not saying dum it down though. Keep going ahead the way we are.

 

just keep a doc type around that support some presentational elements(I'm not syaing all of them either just some simple ones), that way the people learning html from the start, can mess around and create small scale stuff on their path.

 

BTW I agree with you CSS is great, it sure as hell beats one pixel hacks, I'm just saying that more stuff is being added all the time, the languages and rules themselves are becoming more complex. I'm just worried that it'll leave new people in the dust.

 

The web itself is great, new people with a minimum of learning can put stuff up and have their say across a medium that anyone in the globe can see, I'd just like to see that stay an option in the future

[dbrimlow]

The web itself is great, new people with a minimum of learning can put stuff up and have their say across a medium that anyone in the globe can see, I'd just like to see that stay an option in the future

 

This is how we got to the sorry state we are in now, actually.

And more specifically, how we got stuck with so much Microsoft proprietary crap.

 

ALL of their office files can be "saved as a web page". Ever see the horror MS uses as code for these pages?

 

And since IE loves a crap code, ALL of the online "build your own web pages" also decided to code crap specifically for IE.

 

And with the exception of a few CMS programs out there, THEY ALL CODE CRAP!

 

So, what we need is to get rid of all the 3rd party programs that CODE CRAP (ever see the code view of mypage???!!!) for the masses ... not give them more.

 

 

[Ninjakreborn]

It is great that you post your opinion here.  However you need to acknowledge the fact that it's your "opinion" Ever developer that is reading this post of yours is getting mislead and taken down the wrong road.  You are taking new developers that will have lot's of questions, and confuse them making them have even more questions.  Aside from that it's in the wrong post, it should be under misc.  I have nothing against your argument but your going around acting as if it's law, and that your right and everyone else is wrong.  You have your views, but to be honest, it is going to do nothing but to confuse and mis-inform younger/beginning developers who are trying to understand the world of css adn the difference between xhtml/html.  I have even seen 1-2 of the developers who responded and you gave them your views as law, and getting them away from what they should be learning.

[dbrimlow]

However you need to acknowledge the fact that it's your "opinion" Ever developer that is reading this post of yours is getting mislead and taken down the wrong road.

 

Okay, good point. It is hard enough for beginners to css and standards. But, that doesn't change the importance of people realizing the great error that was caused by the whole xhtml as text/html issue. In other words ... we were duped. We were told that xhtml was the next HTML. And that was simply wrong right from the start.

 

Here's the fact:

 

XHTML was not created to be served as text/html (it was "permitted" to be so). The rules of structure were to force conformity with xml rules of structure in order to be served as application-xml.

 

XHTML that IS served as text/html is basically rendered by browsers as HTML (with strange end tags). Period. There is no denying this basic fact.

 

Here's opinion:

 

HTML 4.01 Strict doctype is the only true valid html 4.01 doctype because it does NOT allow the use of any tags, syntax or markup that is not part of the current version of HTML 4.01.

 

Using HTML 4.01 Transitional Doctype is cheating because it does NOT adhere to only those tags, syntax or markup permitted exclusively by the current version of HTML 4.01. It allows deprecated elements from previous html versions. Hence, in no way is it valid HTML 4.01.

 

XHTML 1.1 strict or transitional that is served as text/html is interpreted by browsers as a strange form of HTML ... it is not valid HTML 4.01. And for beginners to be taught to use it is irresponsible.

 

Conclusion:

 

If you are using xhtml 1.1 as an html replacement (served as text/html), you are not coding any current valid html version or using xhtml correctly ... even though it "validates" as xhtml (this just means that you have no errors in your xhtml - in case you happen to be properly serving it as application/xhml+xml).

 

So, beginners should (in my opinion) use html 4.01 strict doctype to ensure that they are coding the most current version of proper HTML and not using old deprecated tags from previous versions.

 

It does not affect the css in any event.

 

 

[Ninjakreborn]

I definitely agree with you to an extent.  I have a few variations I agree with,I was just concerned about the new developers, thank you for responding back in the way you did.  It shows you really care about the education of beginner developers.

[dbrimlow]

It shows you really care about the education of beginner developers.

 

Absolutely. I make it a point to answer any questions the way I always wanted my questions answered.

 

This thread was, to me, important to both beginners and pros.  I am always striving to learn, and every day is an adventure in discovering new concepts and techniques.

 

And if I'm shown that a position I took a stand on was incorrect, I accept that I was mistaken and adopt the correct position.  Conversely, I would defend against all comers a position that I KNOW is proven to be correct.

 

I've been programming since punch cards and IBM 370 mainframes the size of a mini-vans ... I've learned that inflexibility just leads to massive debugging down the line.

[dbrimlow]

Okay, I found a great article by Roger Johannson that explains the issue of XHTML properly using the application/xhtml+xml MIME type. It also explains why in the early days everyone didn't know abouit the problem because they had servers automatically using text/html.

 

This is great for beginners and Pros alike to get what I've been talking about. LOL, note how Roger walks on eggshells and specifically states he is steering clear of the html/xhtml debate ... I wonder why? 

 

http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200501/the_perils_of_using_xhtml_properly/