Re-learning web stuff

[Mercutio]

Last time I did anything web-ish, HTML3 wasn't even spec yet (tables? What tables? OK. Maybe HTML2 wasn't out. Whatever. Nothing supported tables).

I know things have changed vastly but other than getting databases to output nicely-formatting HTML search results, I haven't touched web design-anything in ages.

I'm decent enough at reading HTML, I'm just not sure if I can write anything more than a retro-page (not that it's a bad thing. Light gray and clunky, blue-bordered buttons RULE) on my own.

So what's the right way to catch myself up on this one? Thoughts?

 

[simonstre]

First, you should download WebExpert. It's a quite good web page builder, with built-in templates. Here is the link to download it.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Mercutio, have you considered learning XML? I know its a meta-language but you could create some really cool cross-platform stuff. I would love to access your site from my WAP-enabled cellular phone for example... :wink:

(If you weren't allergic to Macromedia products I would have suggested you Dreamweaver MX... )

 

[Mercutio]

I've always been a hard case about doing everything in a text editor. Auto-generators tend to do thing behind your back.

The other side of this is maybe it's not really worth learning. I change the extension of a word document to .html and it's a web page.

Two sides of a coin, there.

 

[simonstre]

The fact is that WebExpert is a hybrid between a text editor and FrontPage. WinWord is worthless even compare to FrontPage... have you already tried to edit a web page made with this ... euh... cow poo Give it a try, it worths it. I'm a developper; I don't mainly develop web sites, but I have some experience with it. I tried DreamWeaver, and found it difficult to use. WebExpert is very user friendly... But it's just my opinion


Cheers!

 

[CougTek]

I change the extension of a word document to .html and it's a web page.

Yeah, and it screws up your page's layout. I did that. Bad, real bad.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

You hate Wizards and Templates, eh Mercutio? Why?

The much hated FP2002 supports manual tweaking after you automatically create the site... This is the best of both worlds IMO.

 

[simonstre]

Prof.Wizard, have you already tried to built a form with FP2002 and then maintain it efficiently?

I did. I'll never do it again, believe me!!!!!!!!!

 

[Prof.Wizard]

I retreat from this discussion (giving you right!) cause I don't have enough knowledge regarding the matter.

Of course my requirements for a personal site are much less demanding than a professional or even semi-professional site...

 

[Buck]

At one time I used Visual InterDev from Microsoft - I was quite comfortable with the layout. However, as I moved into different extensions, such as .php, InterDev failed to understand the code (it would no longer color-code the code ) Tannin mentioned EditPlus, and I've enjoyed using that ever since. My process of using a text-based editor and uploading via FTP may sound archaic to some, but it works great for me.

If you need some basic HTML help Merc, just let us know (ask Handruin about php).

 

[simonstre]

Well, I'll explain my point of view:

To build a prototype, or a very simple web site, or a web site that won't change much, use FP2002. It's an easy and quick way to do so. For static pages, FP is also very efficient, as it place all the
and

stuff and let you customize you fonts very quickly (but only for IE, AFAIK.)

But if you have any other needs (dynamic pages, forms, tables) you should use either WebExpert or... ahem... well, CougTek could tell you, he sent me a link about that. It's an alternative to Visual Studio and a very good one. You can build web sites and applets with this package.

So, I hope it will help Mercutio to choose a tool a bit more evoluated than Notepad


***** You can do XML with webexpert *****

 

[Buck]

One easy way to refresh your memory on HTML is to copy code from other sites (like Redhill and HLM Company), alter the code and see what changes.

 

[Mercutio]

I already know PHP. It's a great way to talk to MySQL.

Prof - Needing to use a (software) wizard to do something is indicative of a gap in one's knowledge of that technology. Wizards can cover up things you can't do on your own, but then when there's a problem, you also don't know how to fix it.

Notepad? Puh-leeze. I'm a vi kinda guy.

Anyway, I just wanna make something that looks reasonably nice to hang up some pictures online.

photo.net is a great site, and I've referred others there but at this point I'm looking more into where to update my knowledge, not for a new tool to play with.

 

[Buck]

Merc,

Maybe this would help:

http://www.willcam.com/cmat/html/crossref.html

...it is an online reference guide for HTML tags with some additional reference links on it. You can probably find some good sites if you do a search on google.

 

[timwhit]

Prof - Needing to use a (software) wizard to do something is indicative of a gap in one's knowledge of that technology. Wizards can cover up things you can't do on your own, but then when there's a problem, you also don't know how to fix it.

My counter argument to this is that I use wizards in Access all the time to create simple command buttoms or to fill in a subform with data automatically.

I can do it manually, but why bother? It even puts in code for error checking, and it does it a lot faster than I ever could. If something goes wrong I know how to fix it.

So is it wrong to use wizards for this type of thing?

 

[NRG = mc²]

I was about to suggest (despite my hatred to everything else Macromedia) Dreamweaver since in my experience its easy, full of features and creates much more readable code than FrontPiss. But then I remembered you're not much of a Windoze fan. Oh well.

 

[simonstre]

To timwhit:

Yes, you can use Wizards all the time... and suffer from memory leaks if your application is often used, poor performance results if your application grows in size...
Those problem are avoided easily when you do it the hard way and long way. You know, applications made with Access are good... for prototypes or destined to a single-user usage. Well, it's just my opinion... but I think that even VB is better than Access, and you should avoid any multi-user solutions with Access, due to the corruption problems.


To Mercutio :

I don't know ALL the commands in HTML, because this is not really useful. I know only those who can be optimized by a human (sorry for my english, I'm just a frenchie ) I'd suggest that you use a building tool anyway, but that you learn only commands like <TABLE>.
Again, it's just one way to work... not the best for sure, but the best that I have experienced yet.

Hope this helps!

*** Many tutorials are easily available on the web... google provides good links ***

 

[Tannin]

I have to go to work, Mercutio, so I'll return and post more on this later, but I've just done more or less what you are aiming to do: re-bored my HTML skills and dragged myself out of the <TABLE> era into CSS.

There are some brilliant tutorial sites. I'll post my bookmarks for you when I get home tonight.

Don't even think about using any of those crud-filled page generator things. If there is one that doesn't suck big-time, then I haven't met it yet. They produce horrible unreadable code that's vastly longer and more complex than it needs to be and impossible to maintain, they take away your control over the exact layout of the page, and they are not actually any easier to use than the real thing - the real thing being, of course, a proper syntax-highlighting text editor. I like Edit Plus but if there is not a vi variant or twelve that will provide you with at least as good a development environment, I'll eat my keyboard.

A List Apart is a fantastic resource. Probably not the place to start, but I'll post some others later.

 

[Will Rickards]

Regarding Web stuff:
I read the specs, because no tutorial I've found has all the information I want. HTML 4.01 Spec CSS Level 1 Spec CSS Level 2 Spec
I also run the pages through the validator
I eargerly await Tannin's linkage.

Regarding Coding Method:
You can do it the hard way. There is something about knowing how the underlying technology works. And I could go on and on about how my misconceptions about COM and the stuff under VB screwed up a big project I was working on big time due to concurrency issues that truly never got resolved. But the truth is visual tools (wizards, form builders) have their place. Especiallly when working with lots and lots of code.

 

[Handruin]

I typically write my HTML and php with editpad, but lately I've been using homesite 5.0. I use it for form validation, it's a nice feature when you have tons of nested tables.

 

[timwhit]

To timwhit:
Yes, you can use Wizards all the time... and suffer from memory leaks if your application is often used, poor performance results if your application grows in size...
Those problem are avoided easily when you do it the hard way and long way. You know, applications made with Access are good... for prototypes or destined to a single-user usage. Well, it's just my opinion... but I think that even VB is better than Access, and you should avoid any multi-user solutions with Access, due to the corruption problems.

The thing is, is that Access creates code that is just as good for simple tasks as any programmer. I don't see how any memory leaks could come from this? I'm not talking about complicated things here, like a command button that adds a new record or deletes a record...it's pretty hard to have a memory leak when that is all you are doing.

In regards to the fact that you think Access has problems with multi-user solutions. The reason that you think this is that in the past pre version 3 there were no record locks in Access. So if 2 users were trying to write a record at the same time something bad would happen. This is no longer the case. Even the most expensive database solutions use the same kind of record locking that Access uses, be it Oracle or SQL Server.

In regards to VB being better than Access for development purposes, this is true, but most of the projects that I work on are for single user systems and it is more costly to develop a frontend with VB or VC++ and the customers don't want to spend more than they have to. I am currently evaluating several solutions to port some Access application to VB currently. Because, several of the more complex Access apps that we developed are running pretty slow.

I was just talking to one of the developers of a company called Vital Link today, they make a pretty hardcore POS system (Point of Sale) this is serious software. Costs about $800 per terminal, deployed at thousands of restaurants. And this program uses an Access database with a VB/VC++ frontend. I asked him why he doesn't use SQL Server and he said it costs a bunch of money and it doesn't really speed things up at all.

Sorry for Hijacking your thread Merc...

 

[Platform]

Notepad? Puh-leeze. I'm a vi kinda guy...

So, you're saying that you are a masochist, correct?

...Anyway, I just wanna make something that looks reasonably nice to hang up some pictures online.

Are we talking about a minimalistic website??? Your aforementioned HTML 3 will still work fine for that unless you wish to simply learn something new. Maybe you should boot up on M$ Winders for once and fiddle around with FrontPage. It does have an integrated text editor and your not required to use Internet Explorer (as someone was mentioning).

 

[Sol]

I don't know if this ones arround anymore but a couple of years ago I used hotdog by sausage software.
Basically a text editor with the end web page in a seperate window updated as you go. It had shortcuts for all your HTML tags but it didn't put in a single bit of code you didn't write. Highlighted everything in a usfull way. Saved me a hell of a lot of time since I didn't know HTML at the time but all the tags and just what they did was all right in front of me.
Of course I wouldn't know if there is a 'nix version worth a look though in my opinion.

On wizards, they have their place. MFC for one. Damn microsoft and thier crappy unnesasarily confusing interfaces. Its far easier to write code that does everything you want and then plug you MFC front end in with wizards. If they bugger up throw them away, its faster than debugging it.

 

[Mercutio]

Minimal web site for ex-girlfriend's stuff, that I'd like to look nice, 'cause I'm a perfectionist. Place for me to play and learn for the rest, Gary.

timwhit: Regarding your discussion I can only say that you're both right. Access is a PITA but it does great for quick and dirty stuff.

 

[Tannin]

Tony's Potted HTML Guide: http://website.lineone.net/~tonylondon/htmguide/htmguide.htm No, not me. Some other Tony. A good, concise page.

IDOCS Guide to HTML: http://www.idocs.com/tags/character_famsupp_92.html This is a link to their introduction to CSS, but you'll soon click your way around to their other pages. Easy paced, clear, concise, quite comprehensive. Highly recommended. Probably the best single site to visit if you are just starting to learn CSS.

Glish.com CSS Layout Techniques: http://glish.com/css/ I don't remember this site but I bookmarked it and it seems worth exploring.

Comprehensive guide to .htaccess: http://javascriptkit.com/howto/htaccess.shtml I didn't know any of this stuff before I stumbled acros this site. Narrow focus, exactly what the site title claims.

W3C Cascading Style Sheets, level 1: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1 Not a tutorial! The official spec. Long, comprehensive, an essentiial source but not something you would read from start to finish.

 

[Tannin]

Lots more, but those above are a good starting point.

A List Apart, which I linked to in my first post in this thread, is simply the best though. Of many excellent and useful articles, this particular one: "Give me Pixels or Give me Death" stands out: http://www.alistapart.com/stories/fear4/ Be sure to follow the links to related articles in the series, and then cruise around at will. A great site.

Also, CSS Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.hwg.org/resources/faqs/cssFAQ.html

 

[Bartender]

Good information at the end of those links Tannin, thanks.

 

[SteveC]

I bumped this thread because I'm working on something for personal use, and I want to do it by hand instead of a WYSIWYG editor since figured it would be a good time to learn something new. The last time I did a web page was ~1996, and obviously a lot has changed since then. I still know basic HTML, but it's the modern design guides for making a good website (that's also browser independant) that I'm unclear of. I've so far briefly looked over the links provided in this thread, and will read them in-depth in the coming days (weeks). For now, I just have a couple of quick questions. What are the differences between HTML4 and XHTML? Which is preferable for the future? Are there instances when would one be preferable over the other? Also does anyone have any other good books/tutorials that they can recommend that haven't already been posted?

Steve

 

[blakerwry]

I used to use www.htmlgoodies.com for its quick and easy tutorials on html, java script, css.

The search feature is helpfull for finding a tutorial or using the site as a reference.

 

[ihsan]

AFAIK, XHTML is an extension to the HTML 4.0 and it's primarily created with the usage of XML + XSLT. Since XML doesn't describe the layout/interface of a document, XSLT is used to do that. The output of those two produces XHTML documents.

 

[ihsan]

As XML takes precedence over HTML, XHTML is the way of the future. SOAP and XML-RPC are two of the main driving initiatives behind web services that going to ensure XHTML in addition of XML becomes the standard. I'm not very familiar with SOAP since I no longer own any of Microsoft .Net tools, with regards to XML-RPC barely a scratch of understanding.

cas would be the correct person to ask since I noticed his work with XML in SR forum; the sample usage XML file he tutored to Sivar. I would assume he would know about XSLT and XHTML more in depth.

 

[Will Rickards WT]

XHTML 2.0 is the future but from what I hear 2.0 may not be backwards compatible. For personal projects I'd say stick with HTML 4.01 Strict.