Advice on Reference Book

I've been using :
Instant HTML Programmers Reference
HTML 4.0 Edition.
which has served me well for about 10 years.

However, in view of all the stuff that's been deprecated
in the interim, I reckon I need something more
up-to-date now that I've decided to play with XHTML.

I've just bought the HTML Dog,
Best Practice Guide to XHTML & CSS
and CSS, the Missing Manual
but neither are laid out in the sort of 'quick reference'
that the old book has.

Any suggestions on a similar reference book ?

(You lot started this with your advice !)
--


http://www.ian-stewart.eu

Josiah Jenkins wrote:

However, in view of all the stuff that's been deprecated
in the interim, I reckon I need something more
up-to-date now that I've decided to play with XHTML.

Is there a reason you've decided to use XHTML? Certain Microsoft
products will not properly process your pages.

http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

Josiah Jenkins:

Any suggestions on a similar reference book ?

Sorry, I can't recommend a book - I'm sure someone else will be along
shortly - but I would say that the specifications themselves are
indispensable and the W3C publish them as PDFs if you prefer paper.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

Not bedtime reading, right enough, but they shouldn't take too long to
read and they are the definitive sources (well, CSS 2.1 is officially
still a draft, and I should cite it as a work in progress, but it's as
definitive as we have just now).

--
John

Josiah Jenkins <josiah-jenkins (AT) somewhere_else (DOT) invalid> writes:

I've been using :
Instant HTML Programmers Reference
HTML 4.0 Edition.

I would have avoided that book based on the title alone. Markup is not
programming, and I wouldn't trust an author who doesn't understand the
difference.

However, in view of all the stuff that's been deprecated
in the interim

"All the stuff"? The latest HTML is only 4.01, which isn't all *that*
different than 4.0.

Best Practice Guide to XHTML & CSS

Best practice for XHTML can be summarized in one word: Don't.

No version of IE supports it correctly. If you serve it as text/html, IE
will sort of "support" it by parsing it as HTML, which means you're
restricted to using standard HTML 4.01 features anyway. That makes
using XHTML pretty much pointless.

Any suggestions on a similar reference book ?

O'Reilly & Associates' "nutshell" series are good references IME.

(You lot started this with your advice !)

That's just not true. In this group, the advice most commonly given
by those qualified to give it is to stick with HTML 4.01 (with a strict
doctype) and CSS.

Of course, like any group, you'll find lots of unqualified advice here
too, but if you read the group for a while you'll get a good handle on
who has a clue and who doesn't.

sherm--

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:49:32 +0100, Josiah Jenkins
<josiah-jenkins (AT) somewhere_else (DOT) invalid> wrote:
<snip>

I've tried to combine the three responses here in order to reply.

Thanks to all for the input.

However, in view of all the stuff that's been deprecated
in the interim,

SP : The latest HTML is only 4.01

All my current pages are HTML 4.01 Transitional and use CSS
(and also validate)

. . . I've decided to play with XHTML.

BTS : Is there a reason you've decided to use XHTML?
Certain Microsoft products will not properly process your pages.

SP : Best practice for XHTML can be summarized in one word: Don't.

I suspect I've misunderstood what was said to me previously.
See my comments below.

I've just bought the HTML Dog,
Best Practice Guide to XHTML & CSS
and CSS, the Missing Manual
but neither are laid out in the sort of 'quick reference'
that the old book has.

Any suggestions on a similar reference book ?

JD : Links to the W3C PDFs

Thanks for those, I'll try to make sense of them.

(You lot started this with your advice !)

SP : That's just not true.

Sorry, it was a bad joke. What I meant was that, on the advice
I've been given here, I've now managed to get 'clean' pages and,
having been pleasantly surprised at what I've managed to achieve,
now want to move onto the next level.

SP : In this group, the advice most commonly given by those
qualified to give it is to stick with HTML 4.01 (with a strict doctype)
and CSS.

That's probably what I want to do. Move from pages which are currently
'Transitional' to ones which validate as 'Strict'.

So it's CSS that I'll need to 'gen up' on then ?
No more <center></center> and similar ?

I honestly don't know how I got the idea that XHTML was the next
step along the way. Not knowing enough about the specifications,
I suppose.

SP : Of course, like any group, you'll find lots of unqualified advice
here too, but if you read the group for a while you'll get a good handle
on who has a clue and who doesn't.

Thanks again guys.
--


http://www.ian-stewart.eu

In article <0pmkd599hknjbsr7srk79s1gc72p55ndc0 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Josiah Jenkins <josiah-jenkins (AT) somewhere_else (DOT) invalid> wrote:

I honestly don't know how I got the idea that XHTML was the next
step along the way.

An understandable enough idea. A bit like all but one in a group of
mountaineers thinking, on reaching a tricky bit, that they should join
up with ropes only to have the lead man with the chance to anchor
everyone else go do his own thing, namely bugger all, about it. You have
special dispensation not to be written down in Harlan's black book if
you don't quite get this.

I think Sherm Pendley here or elsewhere (I grabbed it as a clipping for
my desktop) recently said:

"No version of IE supports it correctly. If you serve it as text/html, IE
will sort of "support" it by parsing it as HTML, which means you're
restricted to using standard HTML 4.01 features anyway. That makes
using XHTML pretty much pointless."

intending to be read in the knowledge that IE is pretty much the runaway
major segment of the market.

--
dorayme

Josiah Jenkins <josiah-jenkins (AT) somewhere_else (DOT) invalid> writes:

SP : In this group, the advice most commonly given by those
qualified to give it is to stick with HTML 4.01 (with a strict doctype)
and CSS.

That's probably what I want to do. Move from pages which are currently
'Transitional' to ones which validate as 'Strict'.

Now you're talkin! :-)

So it's CSS that I'll need to 'gen up' on then ?
No more <center></center> and similar ?

Yep, that's the idea.

sherm--

dorayme:

[Josiah Jenkins:]

I honestly don't know how I got the idea that XHTML was the next step
along the way.

An understandable enough idea.

Small wonder, really, when the W3C itself calls XHTML "the next generation
of HTML".

--
John

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:27:28 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
<usenet (AT) larseighner (DOT) com> wrote:

In our last episode, <34bjd5thp4hd4atjbapapc1k2ugftte2og (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, the
lovely and talented Josiah Jenkins broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

'lovely and talented' ? Somehow I think you're confusing me with
someone else but we'll let that stand.
<snip>

I advise you to avoid XHTML unless you really know why you want/need it.

That would appear to be the general concensus. In light of which,
I'll stick with the HTML / PHP pages and CSS.

In the meantime, you can write HTML 4.x by closing all non-empty elements
explicitly, using lowercase for element names and attributes and so forth.

That's one thing I'm doing correctly. I've avoided using Upper case in
web pages since I first started (except in a body of text, obviously)

Probably a habit from the DOS days.
--


http://www.ian-stewart.eu

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:33:55 -0400 from Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.nony.mous (AT) example (DOT) invalid>:

Josiah Jenkins wrote:

However, in view of all the stuff that's been deprecated
in the interim, I reckon I need something more
up-to-date now that I've decided to play with XHTML.

Is there a reason you've decided to use XHTML? Certain Microsoft
products will not properly process your pages.

http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php

Yeah, but Microsoft products don't properly process HTML either. :-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you