Well, in the syntax section, these things should be explained. I don't feel I need to change this, and I think that if the section on syntax is written well enough, then this will not present a problem.
I purposefully avoided the subject in the article I wrote because I didn't know which we were doing. I think readers should be made aware of Xhtml early on (and shown some brief examples of it to show it is very much the same) but told they will be taught 4.01 only for now and that the reason for this will be explained later when they are ready.
Gah! XHTML isn't that different from HTML, so, yeah, it is kinda pointless. But it makes my page's styles work better in IE6, so I'm not going to complain. But, if I remove the " /" you'll be all happy? It bothers you that much? This little trivial thing bothers you that much? *eye twitch*
Ben, calm down. We are just doing our best to make your article best in the viewpoints of the readers. We are only trying to make suggestions as you asked for. 'Tis all
Originally posted by steelersfan88 I think Charles has said this best, there is no purpose to XHTML.
I agree. I think that we should teach these people that it is perfectly acceptable, and in some cases preferred, to code in valid, semantic HTML 4.01, and it will function just fine (I mean, Eric Meyer uses a 4.01 Trans. DTD!!!). Unless you know what you’re doing, then XHTML is not any better than HTML (in the case of just coding websites, it isn’t anyways), and may be worse.
Thousand different paths
So many sterile ends
I chose the Devil's path
Never shall the sun kiss my face
And caress me with it's burning light
For I dwell in the shadows
And sleep side by side with death
XHTML, though I prefer it myself, as it is often used on the web, is pointless. XHTML should be passed as an application of XML, no? But since there are user agents (*cough IE cough*) that don't support it, you also need to pass it as plain old text/html for those that don't support XML. So really, on the web, HTML 4.01 is the preferred way to go, and is what the guide will teach. XHTML is not much of a leap, but is a bit more advanced. One can code a page up to par, and even better than, an XHTML page. So we are sticking with HTML 4.01 for the guide.
Ben, i just don't want to confuse the reader. I remember when i was learning, the most trivial varients in code could throw me for at least a few days. I was just using my readers persepective.
I would reccoment writing the book with HTML but simply explaining in the outer ending about XHTML and converting the present code.
I think introducing XHTML would be great after the guide is finished or whatnot. I think we should wait to confuse the user more after he/she is already completely confused.
Originally posted by steelersfan88 Ben, calm down. We are just doing our best to make your article best in the viewpoints of the readers. We are only trying to make suggestions as you asked for. 'Tis all
I'm not angry, if I was, I wouldn't be typing in coherent English. Fine, then I shall remove the ' /', especially seeing as if I don't, Bob could just remove it when entered into the database. ^_^;
Though it's already been decided, I just thought I'd point out that I'm in compelete agreement. The guide should be exlusively HTML 4.01 (strict, obviously).
Visit Slightly Remarkable to see my portfolio, resumé, and consulting rates.
I still think the readers should be made aware of xhtml early on. Only a small notice mind. I mean what happens if they start learning with us and then see something about xhtml elsewhere? It could throw them off completely.
I'm not talking about teaching any of it or any differences in it, just merely stating that it exists and they should not be thrown by it.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks