I would check Amazon.com, you should be able to find some good HTML books in the new & used section for anywhere from 1-5 bucks plus 4 shipping. I have ordered so called used books from them and they came new in the plastic wrap. Also I would get one that is a reference for html (really you should be looking for xhtml) and a step by step type book. Course you could just order the reference book and use web tutorials to get the step by step stuff. w3schools.com isn't bad for learning HTML.
Excellent, free on-line resources: W3 Schools Online HTML Tutorial Dave Raggett's W3C HTML/CSS Tutorial pages James
I haven't used an HTML book for years, sorry, but there is an inexpensive but well regarded "HTML for Dummies" book in that series. Amazon source link James
I made a page a little while back with a few good web design books on if your looking for books. I am going to do reviews on the books also sometime.
i think online is the most up to date. So i think you should try at w3school or other cool html site.
Well that depends really, I personally still use a strict 4.01 doctype. There are plenty of arguments out there about the two. I would say, don't bother wasting your money on a book when there are plenty of free resources online.
Head to www.wordpress.org They do free hosting for blogs and let you customize with free templates for your blog design and plenty of plugins to do all sorts of cool features.
IMO that is not so. Just about all XHTML is being served as HTML anyway so why not use well-formed HTML 4.01 (Strict to avoid deprecated elements/attributes)? Refer to: Problems serving XHTML .......... also: Serving XHTML as text/html considered harmful The perils of using XHTML properly James
The doctype does not dictate what the type of file is over the http protocol, but instead... http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.17 (aka almost everyone that thinks they're using XHTML isn't really using it, but instead serving it as text/html)
Served is not the same as rendered. The mime type for a zip file could be octet stream, does this mean it isn't a valid zip file when you receive it ? I advised xhtml for the simple reason, whatever is in current will not be in use for evermore. The entire issue reminds me of the HTML 4.0 replacing 3.2. There was a gap with the only 'safe' option was to use 3.2 but now 4 is commonplace and we have evangelists for sticking to the tried and true. Cute sig BTW
As a point of interest, here are the latest iterations of the HTML 5 working Drafts: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/ http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ James
I see what you're saying.. but when a file's MIME type is octet-stream that means usually it isn't handled by the browser.. no? A zip file would be handled by an application if any on the OS, whereas text/html and application/xhtml+xml should be handled by the browser (naturally).
Or rather rendered by the user-Agent, whatever it may be -- Graphical Browser, Screen Reader, Textual Browser, PDA, et al (and including other XML MIME types). James
Yes and no. It is handled by the browser. It receives & treats it like a hot potato. Using octet-stream is to force the browser to offer the download option for a file in case the end user has an application defined for the mime type. Yes, the browser should handle the other two. But does it really matter what it is handling? Here's another question for you, what if the web server compresses the webpages before delivery? All that is just rhetoric to push the idea, the delivery method isn't a issue when it comes time to display the page. Eventually HTML will die. What will replace it? I don't know but might as well take the most accepted current format and start from there. Seems this isn't about the merits of xhtml vs html, it is what's used today and what has bugs. The issue to me, seems to be more server admin based. XHTML 1 shows up fine in FF and IE6 (two of the links posted were XHTML 1, kinda ironic eh?) But the advice I gave was just my opinion, there are other valid opinions I'm sure of it.
No it isn't about the merits of XHTML vs HTML or about bugs, it is about this: Microsoft Internet Explorer Browsers will not render the XML content of XHTML documents served as content (MIME) type application/xhtml+xml. Microsoft's stated rationale is set forth at: Microsoft MSIE 7.0 Blog This is a dilemma for web authors -- and the W3C who has attempted to resolve this situation by embracing Content Negotiation in order to offer a choice of content (MIME) type text/html or application/xhtml+xml XHTML documents to browsers so that they can render them according to their capabilities. The idea is to provide backward compatibility for older browsers and accommodate current non XML compliant MSIE browsers. In theory, only XML compliant browsers (Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, et al) would be served fully functional XHTML documents. Of course, this isn't practical -- MSIE users would not be able to utilize XML content. BTW, as pointed out in the above IE Blog, MSIE Browsers will now display XHTML application/xhtml+xml documents -- but they will not render XML content. I personally am hopeful that Microsoft will change its stance on this issue so that I can incorporate my RDF documents (Dublin Core Metadata & rss) into XHTML pages for general use rather than externally linking them as do at present -- see my signature link. Side issue: If we ever get universal XML compliant XHTML, existing Style sheets (CSS) will have to be reformulated for they are utilized differently in XML compliant XHTML compared to how they are utilized in XHTML served as HTML. For instance, in order to be compatible with XML methodology for defining CSS rules, an XML stylesheet declaration must be used. James