|
|
Posted by Jack on 08/05/06 16:09
Stan McCann wrote:
> Jack <mrdemeanour@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> [me] wrote in
> news:eb25sn$dpr$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk:
>> You can't use either of those as teaching resources! Even as
>> reference documents they are hard to read!
>
> I disagree about the HTML. While I was teaching HTML, I introduced
> my students to the W3 references within a few class periods.
> Specifically to the element reference list where they could see all
> elements listed and easily find out more about any of them.
OK; well I haven't taught for more than a decade and a half, and I'm
happy to defer to your more recent experience. I agree that *as a
reference*, the W3C reference docuemntation is indispensable. But I
still say that it doesn't make a very good textbook.
I think a better reference could be compiled; but any such document
obviously runs the risk of being superceded (or over-ruled) by the
normative reference. So I agree that the W3C material is the only
*reference* that students should be pointed at.
>
> I do agree, and probably shouldn't have included it, that the XHTML
> is confusing and probably counter productive for a newbie. Most of
> the books I reviewed were teaching XHTML and I had to tell my classes
> some of the difference and to avoid it.
I'd go quite a bit stronger than that; the XHTML reference is completely
useless for anything, if it is separated from the documents to which it
refers. It's effectively a "shell" document.
>
>>> CSS: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
>> The W3C material on CSS is better - but still not really suited to
>> teaching.
>
> This, I really disagree on. By the time my classes got to CSS, this
> was the best reference for them. From the horses mouth so to speak
> and not really difficult to understand with a little explanation.
OK. If you've had success teaching with the W3C CSS documentation as
your core "textbook", then I'm a little surprised; but presumbly you
used self-authored additional material that filled in all the gaps. I'm
guessing that you may be rather a good teacher.
>
>> The Oh Really "Rhino" book on Javascript (Flanagan) is very good.
>> Some would argue that it's the best. The reference sections are
>> second to none. It's a fat book, but the subject is complicated.
>
> In my more advanced classes where the students did learn javascript,
> I used "JavaScript, second edition" by Don Gosselin. Not too bad of
> a book. I'm not much into javascript though; we did some simple
> picture pre-loading and that was about it.
I hate Javascript with passion. Writing code for an interpreted platform
without knowing what implementation of the interpreter you have to work
with is a sucker's game. I've been compelled to play this game, and it's
no fun.
Javascript implementations tend to be better (in terms of consistency
and so on) than CSS implementations, but because of the extra complexity
of a language implementation, the consequences of any deviation from the
standard tend to be more severe.
--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|