PDA

Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : I'm stuck again!

Leaklander
02-14-2003, 06:24 PM
Hello once again i hope that i'm not trying your patience too much but i'm stuck yet again. I am trying to set the background and text color
using: <body="white"text="blue"> But nothing happens? :confused:
meow
02-14-2003, 06:32 PM
<body bgcolor="white" text="blue">
Note the space between attributes too. :)
Charles
02-14-2003, 06:35 PM
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>Loerm ipsem</title>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body{background-color:#ffffff; color:#0000ff}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Lorem ipsem</h1>
<p>Nam liber tempor *** soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum.</p>
</body>
</html>
Charles
02-14-2003, 06:37 PM
The method suggested by meow was determined to be a bad idea back in 1997. Use Style Sheets instead. See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/.
meow
02-14-2003, 07:10 PM
I must ask you Charles, did you learn HTML/XHTML/CSS all at once? Let people learn for Pete's sake and don't discourage them from doing so.

I was a newbie. Were you?

BTW I believe it should be "Lorem ipsum". You really lose 1337 points misspelling that. :rolleyes:
Charles
02-14-2003, 07:55 PM
You do the Newbies no help to teach them things that they will just have to un-learn. And I've found that once people start thinking of their pages in the old HTML 3.2, presentation mark-up way they have a great deal of difficulty even understanding what it means to separate content from presentation.
Rifter72
02-14-2003, 08:06 PM
Charles, as I noted in another thread in which you replied, I am learning HTML from a book (and from online sources). This book covers HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0, is this the most current info or should I be looking for something else? I am all for learning it right "the first time" so to speak. But I do agree with meow that people should be able to learn any way that they want without being looked down on. Perhaps HTML 3.2 is easier for them, or they just don't have to time to learn the new standards. Anyway, I know people who have Win95 machines and they just love it, won't upgrade for nothing. Just my two cents. But your input on my current learning would be appreciated. Again, is HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 the most current versions?
Charles
02-14-2003, 08:23 PM
HTML 3.2 only works on graphical browsers and that excludes users of Braille, audio and other adaptive browsers. And it can also cause trouble with search engines. HTML 4.01 transitional and XHTML 1.0 transitional are essentially the same thing as HTML 3.2.

A lot is happening at the W3C but at the present the gold standard is the HTML 4.01 Specification. Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest that thing. Strictly speaking, the W3C is abandoning HTML for XHTML but if you read the XHTML 1.0 specification it tells you to follow the XML rules and the HTML 4.01 Specification. And the XHTML 1.1 specification is simply the XHTML 1.0 without the transitional option. (There's also something very important going on under the surface with the XHTML 1.1 DTD but I leave that for another post.) XHTML 2.0 is in the works and it represents some very interesting changes. But conceptually, you can easily go from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 2.0 but if you get HTML 3.2 stuck in your head then you may never recover.
ScreamingCows
02-15-2003, 01:05 AM
WHAT?
Stefan
02-15-2003, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by Rifter72 people should be able to learn any way that they want without being looked down on.
Perhaps HTML 3.2 is easier for them, or they just don't have to time to learn the new standards.


Charles intensions as well as advice is good. But sometimes you have to be a bit pushy with good advice to make sure people get it (for their own benefit) :D

In this case, for a compleate newbie it might SEEM easier to deal with 3.2. But in this case the shortcut will very soon turn out to actually be a much longer detour with a lot of bumps in the road.

The extra time spent on learning eg how to separate content from formating using CSS right from the start will save you the initial time spent many times over down the road.
Quite a few people that have coded webpages for many years are reluctant to take the first step away from <table>layout and move to CSS. But once they do they realize just how easy CSS is to work with and wonder why they didn't do it years ago.


Again, is HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 the most current versions?

4.01 is the main standard in use today, but 1.0 to older browsers looks just like 4.01. XHTML/XML also pushes you to write more correct code from the beginning if you use eg http://validator.w3.org to check your code.
I would NOT recomend messing with 1.1+ at this time for newbies.
ScreamingCows
02-15-2003, 01:27 AM
Hi,

I have not read indepth about XHTML but I have read that it is basically just having to place closing tags </td> </font> etc.. Is that right? I've done that anyway even before XHTML. I've also always been under the impression that CSS has it's browser problems too, as in some do recognize it and some don't. I do use CSS if I want my scrollbar color different and such but nothing that will affect the outlook of my web page itself to the surfer. So as long as the big boys keep agreeing to disagree about CSS I myself will continue to use html which is read by all. I find it best to use hexidecimal and not just the name color as in <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#0000FF"> and only the browser safe colors even though only 4% of my users are Netscapers. Wouldn't life be so much better with just one browser? ;)

Allan
Stefan
02-15-2003, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by ScreamingCows
[B]Hi,
I have not read indepth about XHTML but I have read that it is basically just having to place closing tags </td> </font> etc..


That is one change yes. There are others differemnces too though.


I've also always been under the impression that CSS has it's browser problems too, as in some do recognize it and some don't.


Browsers don't agree and have bugs in normal HTML too. But for most simple uses that a table layout can acchive CSS can also acchive.
It's when you get into really advanced stuff (that you cannot do with tables anyway) that you hit the real bumps with browwserbugs.

I find it best to use hexidecimal and not just the name color as in <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#0000FF">


and <body style="color:#0000ff; background:#ffffff"> is harder to use, exactly why?


and only the browser safe colors even though only 4% of my users are Netscapers.


What does 256 color resolutions on ancient hardware got to do with Netscape and 4%? :confused:

Please explain...
Charles
02-15-2003, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by ScreamingCows
Hi,

I have not read indepth about XHTML but I have read that it is basically just having to place closing tags </td> </font> etc.. Is that right? I've done that anyway even before XHTML. I've also always been under the impression that CSS has it's browser problems too, as in some do recognize it and some don't. I do use CSS if I want my scrollbar color different and such but nothing that will affect the outlook of my web page itself to the surfer. So as long as the big boys keep agreeing to disagree about CSS I myself will continue to use html which is read by all. I find it best to use hexidecimal and not just the name color as in <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#0000FF"> and only the browser safe colors even though only 4% of my users are Netscapers. Wouldn't life be so much better with just one browser? ;)

Allan This post is an excellent example of how somebody's thinking can become frozen in HTML 3.2. This person is lost and will never understand.

"Wouldn't life be so much better with just one browser?" The purpose of HTML 3.2 is to make pages look the same on all graphical browsers. To make it seem as if there were only one browser in use. And it does that pretty well - for graphical browsers. But it makes pages unusable for someone using a Braille browser or for a non-human users such as a search engine or online translator. The original purpose of HTML and the current purpose is to make pages that are platform and hardware independent. Ones that are universally accessible.

"So as long as the big boys keep agreeing to disagree about CSS I myself will continue to use html which is read by all." The big boys got together, formed the W3C and agreed to support its specifications and recommendations. And that includes Microsoft, Netscape, Mozilla and Opera. Browsers have handled CSS well enough for years now. And the whole point of separating content from presentation is that the page makes sense without the presentation. Graphical browsers that do not support CSS will still properly display the page. This won't even make sense to someone who is lost to HTML 3.2.
ScreamingCows
02-15-2003, 01:46 PM
Makes sense to me Charles :D It seems to me that Microsoft, Netscape, Mozilla, and Opera seem to want to incorporate their own CSS and not one that is globally recognised. Is that not why CSS is recognised on some and not on others? I never mentioned html 3.2, I did say that I have always closed my tags so I guess that means I am on my way to XHTML. Mind if I learn it first? I want to make you proud Charles. :o It seems to me the W3C does not have that much control over the big boys or EVERYTHING would be global already. Please stop making assumptions and insulting persons on this forum. It just makes you look really angry and foolish. My tip of the day. :D

Browser safe colors: If you use a color that looks right on one browser it may not look right on another so you use the proven browser safe colors to know that the color you want will be seen as that color in all browsers.

Braille Browsers: I place alt tags and summary attributes with descriptions, what else is there?

Good luck W3C in forming the great global languages, it will never happen. There is too much Big Business money on this "free" Internet. lol free... The Internet is not free and never has been or will be, it's just one giant big business from top to bottom. The only thing missing in the tree is the root above it all and the government gave that away years ago. If they knew where the Internet was heading they would never have let it slip away.

Allan
Charles
02-15-2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by ScreamingCows
It seems to me that Microsoft, Netscape, Mozilla, and Opera seem to want to incorporate their own CSS and not one that is globally recognised. Is that not why CSS is recognised on some and not on others? I'm not sure what planet you are from but Microsoft, Netscape, Mozilla, and Opera all recognize the same W3C CSS specifications. And they are all members of the same W3C. You have to go very far back in time, to before the CSS specification came out, to find versions of those browsers that do not support CSS.Originally posted by ScreamingCows
Braille Browsers: I place alt tags with descriptions, what else is there?There's a great deal more to it than that. The full list is found at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ but let me discuss one aspect, the separation of content from presentation. Consider two ways of marking up headings.

<p><b>One Unhappy Heading</b></p>

and

<h4>Tis a Far, Far Better Heading</h4>

One would think that the two are equivalent, but they are not. They are rendered the same on a graphical browser and a sighted person can tell by the context that the first one is a heading. But that information is lost to someone using a Braille or audio browser. Nor can computers tell that the first is a heading. Sighted persons can quickly scroll down a page and/or scan a page and find their place according to the headings. Screen readers, and the graphical browser Opera, allow users to "tab though" the headings, but only if the web author has marked them up properly using the second method. And search engines rank pages according to the content of the headings, but only if the headings are marked up properly.

You will find that most all of the elements in HTML have meaning apart from their presentation. The P element designates a paragraph, the EM emphasis, the CITE a citation. At this level, presentation is unnecessary. The web author doesn't need to care or even know how a BLOCKQUOTE element will be presented to the user, but the user will always know that it designates a block quotation.

This is what the W3C accessibility guidelines mean by requireing that one both "Use style sheets to control layout and presentation" and "Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets." And is what is meant by "Guideline 3. Use markup and style sheets and do so properly."
ScreamingCows
02-15-2003, 02:34 PM
Thanks Charles,

The information you gave me on header tags and paragraph tags and such has made me want to go over my pages. I know that I have hardly ever used the <h> tag but controlled the size of the text through font sizes. Thank you for that. I also will continue my learning of CSS since I knew from before that was the direction it was going. I am now changing my views on CSS in different browsers as my way of thinking, from what I have read before and such, is probably now outdated. Is it? It's good about not having to worry about BLOCKQUOTE as that never worked in a Netscape browser anyways lol. Does this also mean that browser safe colors need not be worried about? I'll check out the link too. Thanks for the tips. I am from planet Earth :D

Allan
Stefan
02-16-2003, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by ScreamingCows
Browser safe colors: If you use a color that looks right on one browser it may not look right on another so you use the proven browser safe colors to know that the color you want will be seen as that color in all browsers.


The overwhelming mayority of users with graphical browsers use 65000 or more colors. If you feel like you want to limit yourself to 216 of those colors based on something that was relevant 5 years ago, then you have every right to do so.

It has nothing to do with Netscape & their marketshare though.
ScreamingCows
02-16-2003, 11:13 AM
You're absolutely right! I have every right to do exactly as I please and do it all without you or anyone elses approval or compliance. This is such a lame forum LOL! I'm outta here. :D Don't you and Charlie have some pencils to sharpen for your boss and go get my coffee while you're at it. After that you can take the afternoon off and go play with your hard drives together. :D The Insults and Snot Nosed Assholes FORUM is just down the Internet, they are looking for a couple of dorks to join and give it real class, hurry and sign up before your friends do.

LOL Have a real nice day,

Allan

Signing off from the lamest forum I have ever been on. Lame because of people like you and chuckles. Buh Bye :D
Stefan
02-16-2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by ScreamingCows
Signing off from the lamest forum I have ever been on. Lame because of people like you and chuckles. Buh Bye :D [/B]

If I'm a lame dork becuse you don't know what you are talking about, well I can live with that.
It's just as accurate as everything else you have posted sofar :p