Hi I am runnig a YouTube channel where I am teaching programing and two of all languages I am walking throw is xHTML and CSS.
I used w3schools as a reference in my xHTML serie but when I was recording I clicked my way in to there so called "lessons" and saw that they are still using HTML 3.2 elements and attributes. I just bit my tounge and told everyone that is locking at my clip that they are under no circumstances allowed to view that material. But I was recording and time is a factor.
But when I was doing my CSS serie (two days from posting) I just got sick of them and did a Google(.. ohh I mean Yahoo :rolleyes:) and found SitePoints reference and got blown away, SitePoint the company that has writers like Paul O'Brian, Jina Bolton, Cameron Adams and I just starting that list. Great people that has made some of the best books and I am gona recommend three out five SitePoint books at the end of my serie.
And Yeah I get of point some times, but returning. How in the world of Yahoo can SitePoint reference even have these HTML elements in there list and not even mark them as depreached yet:
Blink (A Netscape/FireFox unique element and not in the HTML 4.01 DTD)
And with Marquee I just stoped looking. The two above is not even in the specification of W3C, not even as "Forbidden".
Or HTML 3.2
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32 (Just got too love the design )
My opinion is that they should not even match up high enougth to cut a SitePoint level but at least get marked as Dept. and placed in the Depreached section of the Reference.
Hope you can by side my english, in my defense I belive my english is better then your swedish
As I said, love the company and the writers keep it going!
2) I've always found the sitepoint reference to be very complete on what works and how things work -- but it is NOT a simple to use or simple to follow reference and in many cases it's just not something I'd point a nube at.
I'd suggest using the old WDG reference instead. It's fairly old -- but when's the last time html 4.01 saw a real change? A decade ago? it's complete, it's concise, it's easy to navigate, it has no accessibility issues, it has deprecated tags in gray, has a scripting assist to hide them, AND they have a download page for offline use -- it's pure win.
3) I would not point nubes at any one reference -- the WDG one is good for beginners, Sitepoint's is better for once they understand all the tags and what they are for.... W3Schools is a outdated pile of web rot that ONLY really has anything resembling a user base because people think has something to do with the W3C when it doesn't!
1) And I even searched that word to get i correct :mad: (;))
2 & 3) Yes I know, they don't invest alot of time in there "schools" but still, about old elements and attributes. The people watching my clips is in highschool/Uni. level, they will become the first real HTML 5 wave of coders and pointing them to sites that includes Marquee and Blink. That is so old that not even I use them feels as I would put down the same level of intrest in my "schools" as W3C does. I don't care about YouTube ratings, so I stand my ground here and tell them too buy "The Ultimate CSS Reference" (Sitepoint) instead.
Hej, på chimpansernas tid var jag en apa...
The MARQUEE and BLINK were not officially "deprecated" (so cannot be marked as such) from the W3C TR because they were proprietary nonsense...
However the HTML5 non-normative document will mention them (and it’s not really a technology I would teach a newbie) and certainly not until they understood HTML 4.01, and were equipped to evaluate whether it were even a sensible option.
Though I do agree that SP Reference would have been better served; if it mentioned they were M$ and NS PROPRIETARY elements on those single pages too. Albeit it does briefly have: http://reference.sitepoint.com/html/elements-proprietary. Personally I just use the official W3C TR myself as a reference but it's dry reading.
Aside one the SP Books on the Subject of HTML5 also fails to get this simple fact right with regards to EMBED, it wrongly mentions it being 'deprecated' from XHTML.
W3Cschools is pretty much sloppy affair regarding accuracy even though it seems fairly palatable with ease of reading.
You also need to grow a beard (Jag har ett stort skägg), meditate breath code and pray to the gods occasionally.
Those two Swedish instances in this thread are about the only Swedish phrases I know the latter being to impress the women.
In other words the very thing I'd be trying to PREVENT with nubes since HTML 5 so far as markup is concerned is 90% idiotic rubbish and bloat. I truly pity anyone ignorant or dumb enough to see any sort of merit in adopting HTML 5.
Just tack that onto my list of increasing disgust with the industry as a whole...
Oh really, I miss spelled a word I search for and now I am getting beat down on my comment that my Swedish is better
Okey, well I am gona take the chicken way out here and just send them of too "my version of Yahoo" and let them search. I did download the xHTML doc in my series but it's hardly newbie reading and I let them use W3Schools tag referense, that clip is on my channel since a couple of days by now. And recommend a book for CSS. "CSS The Utimate Referemce" is the best book out there too day.
And Yes I agree that HTML 5 is the biggest joke that W3 made, why did we convert from HTML 3 too HTML 4? To remove all design and let CSS take that blow, but yeah now mixing behaviour and presentation that will make the day. The history will repeat it self. HTML 5 will be like HTML 3 where we mix everything in a cup and try to serve that to G.Ramsey and the browsers will restart a war about how knows best then finally, HTML 6 will be just like HTML 4 a spring cleaning of the elements and attributes.
But still, you should se the Swedish market for any form of programing material, if they want HTML 5 then I will show it when time comes around.
You know that you said that "In the time of chimpansise I was a monkey" right? Try this one next time you shop in a Sweden and that cute girl ask you if you want the recit:
"Bara om ditt nummer står på baksidan" - "Only if your phone number is on the back"
Cheers from Mr.1Buying that just downloaded FoxLingo to FireFox that migth help my spelling in the next post, and Thanks for your replys!
I wasn't commenting on your English. So don't worry.
Yes I know, I wrote "In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey", I'd probably have problems pronouncing correctly anyway. :lol:
I just happen to be a good friend of Tommy author of (Max räckvidd med HTML & CSS) and he sometimes contacts me via phone occasionally but obviously I don't speak Swedish so it's a good job his English is excellent. The part about the 'big beard' was to impress the women.
This topic is now closed. New replies are no longer allowed.