|
|
Posted by Tony Cooper on 10/10/05 08:12
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 03:39:45 GMT, "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws4art@centralva.net> wrote:
>>>>No argument from me on that score, but what is "right"? If the intent
>>>>is to put up a single page with a couple of images, is placing the
>>>>text and the images with CSS instead of 4.01 more "right"?
>>>
>>>I think you are mistaken here, 4.01 governs the structure and use CSS
>>>for the style, your precious attributes are deprecated. What you
>>>describe is pre-4.01, like 4.0 and 3.2.
>>
>>
>> You could very well be right. The one book that I have on html is
>> titled "HTML 4.01 Weekend Crash Course", and what I do is based on
>> that book. I assumed that the information in the book is all 4.01.
>> If it's not, I wouldn't know the difference.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "your precious attributes are
>> deprecated".
>
>It sounds like 'HTML 4.01 Weekend Crash Course' wasn't worth whatever
>you paid for it. Deprecated are legacy or proprietary elements or
>attributes ear-marked for phasing out and their uses is discouraged. If
>you use 4.01 strict doctype your code will not validate. A good place to
>start:
>
You say the book wasn't worth whatever I paid for it. Yet, after
about an hour's reading I'm doing what I want to do. That makes it
worth the money as far as I'm concerned.
I'd be willing to listen if someone would just provide some "why"s. I
knew when I came to this group about what kind of comments I'd get.
I've been here before and I've lurked at bit.
The objections are that what I'm using is deprecated, discouraged, not
recommended, will not validate, not the current thing to do, and on
and on.
What is the problem, though? I'm putting pages that are up for a
month and up just to be seen by a small group of family members. The
pages that I put up load, show what I want to show, do what I want to
do, and take minutes to prepare.
No one, so far, has said "What you're doing is wrong because ...."
What's the downside?
Your site, Jonathan, (the link in your sig) is up there for a
completely different reason than my site. Your's is a permanent - or
as permanent as sites go - site that is intended to display and sell
your creations. Possibly you want it to come up search engines. It's
a business venture. For no other reason than that it should be done
using the most current techniques.
My site, though, is a link to some pictures of my family for other
members of my family. No one else, normally, ever sees it. It's a
temporary site with a planned lifespan of a mayfly. Since it will
down by November, why should I care if the attributes will be phased
out sometime in the future. Why should I care if it doesn't validate?
I don't want it found by search engines.
Stan says he doesn't mind his site having spelling and punctuation
errors because it's just a casual personal site. Yet, he objects to
my casual personal site being written in an outmoded style. Doesn't
make sense to me. His errors are visible, but mine are not unless you
peek at the source The people that I send links to don't look at the
source.
I really wish that someone here could provide a logical explanation
based on the "why"s and "because"s and geared to the specific intent
involved. Just tell me how
http://home.earthlink.net/~tony_cooper213/bluehome.html would
accomplish something if written in CSS with all of the latest bells
and whistles that it doesn't accomplish the way it is.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|