DaveyBoy — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:46:14 +0000

I hate how sometimes firebox creates more space above a than IE but if you use the tag instead it doesn't i've found.

steve40 — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:20:11 +0000

I have used to provide a break at the top of a page, created in tables. Firefox automatically sees one, but Explorer does not. If you use , or Firefox sees two spaces to explorers one. But Firefox ignores the where Explorer sees it as a paragraph, now the top space is the same in both.

I know the proper way is to use margins, but the division makes a good hack otherwise. That is if you are not using CSS. But if you are coding for 4.01 it has to be the former works only for XHTML. And it will validate, believe it or not.

Megan — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:46:58 +0000

I honestly don't think that tables matter that much in the context of this discussion. There are way worse things people are doing, like copying stuff from Word for example, or a complete lack of understanding of how the code works. Tables for layout are a minor offense IMO. I've seen things like multiple tags for example, or head elements includied in the body, things like that.

Quote: HTML 4.01 was developed as a transition between XHTML, and html. And allows the use of some of the older HTML tags. You are right Megan you do not have to close all tags in 4.01 like you do in XHTML. For instance does not have to be closed, but in the case of a blocking element coming up in the code, it is a good idea to do it. is also another tag that does not have to be closed, like it does in XHTML for instance. However does have to be close in 4.01 . Where as in XHTML it can be closed like so

My point there was that those of us who learned in the 90s weren't incorrect when we didn't close tags (at the time). You're right in that you don't have to but shoud. The at the end is incorrect though - any block level element should have some content in it. If you had to include an empty div there would be some problem with the code. THe closing slash is only used for tags like (which is depreciated in xHTML 2.0 BTW), or where there is no enclosed content.

Busy - I can see your point there. I do agree that some of the experts could be a little more concerned with how the masses are learning. However, I would be really disappointed if they stopped writing to an advanced audience. These are the people I am learning from - if they started targeting a more beginner audience I would have no place to get my information from. Better for someone like me to start passing that wisdom down the line And that's where a site like TWF comes in

Quote: Imagine going on a hike, you're a newbie at it and the leader is a pro, is it his fault you dont know how to keep up, how to stay hydrated and end up lost and maybe eaten by bears?

If you're a newbie you shouldn't be joinning an advanced hike in the first place Really, I do think that it would be your fault because you got into something that was too advanced for you. Join a beginner hike instead. And there's no reason why the greatest expert needs to be leading the beginner's hike. The intermediate expert can do that very competently. The problem here is that the intermediate experts aren't stepping up and creating content. And that's something we plan to do here

DaveyBoy — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:19:31 +0000

Tables 4eva

steve40 — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:34:04 +0000

HTML 4.01 was developed as a transition between XHTML, and html. And allows the use of some of the older HTML tags. You are right Megan you do not have to close all tags in 4.01 like you do in XHTML. For instance does not have to be closed, but in the case of a blocking element coming up in the code, it is a good idea to do it. is also another tag that does not have to be closed, like it does in XHTML for instance. However does have to be close in 4.01 . Where as in XHTML it can be closed like so

This thread turned out to be quite a conversation piece.

Busy — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:57:26 +0000

Megan wrote: Oh that's a load of bullshit. You're saying that because someone advocates CSS-based sites they can be blamed for people who haven't learned HTML properly ??? WHat-ever. It is true that there is a lack of beginner CSS resources out there, but that can't be blamed on the leaders in the CSS movement. Their role is not to teach to the newbies. Someone else has got to step up and do that.

The web is about the only place where you can run with the big dogs before you start pooping like a puppy.
You go try do a level 3 course in anything, if you havent done 1 and 2 you can't, you go become a builder, build mutli million dollars homes, if you haven't done the basics they aren't going to leave you to it.
You say it's not the leaders who are responsible, I totally disagree, it is their responsibilty to ensure Joe Bloggs can understand the basics before jumping in the deep end. They are the ones pushing people in their direction, they are the ones trying to lead the future. To me it's bad leadership. A real leader looks after the people they are leading.
Imagine going on a hike, you're a newbie at it and the leader is a pro, is it his fault you dont know how to keep up, how to stay hydrated and end up lost and maybe eaten by bears?

Sidenote, that bs word should of been replaced

Megan — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:49:01 +0000

Sidenote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you have to close all tags under HTML 4??? I'm pretty sure that was something new with either HTML 4.01 or xHTML. (although it's a good idea to author HTML pages now as if you were writing xHTML...). Will have to check that...

Okay, checked -This page passes HTML 4.01 transitional and strict with no closing on lists, paragraphs, or tables.

So, back in the day when many of us learned HTML it wasn't actually incorrect to author this way. I do see a lot of people who didn't realize that HTML has changed and still author that way.

Greg K — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:44:45 +0000

Busy wrote: And because of IE the pages will still display without them.

While I don't think it is IE only, I do agree this is a horrible crutch for the web industry that is hindering instead of helping. I remember back in 1998 or something reading an article that said 50% of the size of the browsers was to deal with figuring out how to display bad web pages

I'm all for browsers that says comes up and says "Hey this page doesn't validate to the standards you specify, we can't display it". (Yeah fantasy land here that all browsers would properly folow standards themselves). This would put a big slowdown on slop pages being generated, force people to either hire someone who knows of force them to learn the right way.

That being said, I'll admit that when I started out my code wasn't exactly right. It wasn't until I stumbled unto Dr. HTML validator that I knew you had to close most all tags. Ones like ,

, and others that would work without the ending tags I just opened. Of course back then I wasn't doing sites for others, it was for my own fun.

-Greg

Megan — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:16:34 +0000

steve40 wrote: Megan.

I was not pointing a finger at this forum, or its leaders. I know it is no ones responsibility to teach, that is an over stressed word. You cannot teach anyone anything, unless they want to learn first. SEO is, and will become more importnt as time moves on. I have no argument with good content, that is a must. But fancy houses built on bad foundations crumble, when the wind blows.

I was responding to BUsy there, not to you, and I don't believe he was talking about anyone around here, but all of the CSS experts out there. You make a good point about people not wanting to learn - I think they could learn to make a proper page if they bothered to do some reasearch instead of diving in head first and hoping to come up with something that works. It is good to see that the SEO community is really starting to recognize the importance of proper coding (and good content).

I am in agreement with your points - what I said below that line was meant as an addition to that. "Overall it is a very broad lack of understanding of what a website is and how to make a successful one" - includes basic knowledge of how to create a simple web page as you described.

steve40 — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:31:26 +0000

Megan.

I was not pointing a finger at this forum, or its leaders. I know it is no ones responsibility to teach, that is an over stressed word. You cannot teach anyone anything, unless they want to learn first. SEO is, and will become more importnt as time moves on. I have no argument with good content, that is a must. But fancy houses built on bad foundations crumble, when the wind blows.

I really don't know what % Google looks at as far as good markup goes, but I know that the new bot does. My point was to learn before you leap, and take a little pride in your coding. After all someone is going to look at it. When you leave Doctypes off your page, the spiders don't even know how to evaluate it. I checked one last night that even had the Doctype before the HTML (this is right), and after the (very wrong).

Point being; a basic page layout is a basic page layout, even if the information is 10 years old. There are a lot of ways to learn. You can download a validator (free). Then you can learn offline, until you have it at least half right.

I went through my learning phase, at a point in my life when learning had not become as easy, as 25 years previous. I even just started to beat CSS, into this 66 year old head a short while ago. BUT I did know how to layout a basic page, and the proper use of HTML first.

Again don't cry when something does not work, and ask others to figure it out for you. I know we all will run into a problem sometimes, we need help with. I have done it, but not about some basic HTML elements. I should have known about from the start. All I am saying is; learn to construct a basic layout before adding content, CSS, or anything else to it. It cant hurt, and can only help in the long run.