Beginner HTML tutorials???
Scott Patten
to work for both explorer and netscape. I want to turn toward typing my own
code and need much guidance because I am pretty clueless. Are there any
webpages that have thorough tutorials on the basics of html?
Thanks,
Scott
JH
Scott Patten <loc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:KjKj4.3652$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com...
>Are there any
> webpages that have thorough tutorials on the basics of html?
Have you tried this?
http://www.altavista.com/
-J
--
alt.html micro-FAQ:
http://hyweljenkins.com/support/mfaq.htm
Affordable design, HTML tutorials & more:
http://www.kcmediapro.com
ecs5298
--
Medic37's EMS Website
http://www.medic37.net
Scott Patten <loc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:KjKj4.3652$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com...
> I've been experimenting with Dreamweaver 2 and cannot seem to get webpages
> to work for both explorer and netscape. I want to turn toward typing my
own
> code and need much guidance because I am pretty clueless. Are there any
> webpages that have thorough tutorials on the basics of html?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
>
John
Download this excellent HTML Tutor. It covers all of the basics, including
the color safe pallette.
http://junior.apk.net/~jbarta/webtutor.exe
John Yukers
Ruth Livingstone
wrote:
>I've been experimenting with Dreamweaver 2 and cannot seem to get webpages
>to work for both explorer and netscape. I want to turn toward typing my own
>code and need much guidance because I am pretty clueless. Are there any
>webpages that have thorough tutorials on the basics of html?
>
>Thanks,
>Scott
If you are an absolute beginner, you may find my tutorial is a good
starting point.
Ruth
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ruth.livingstone
HTML for absolute beginners at
http://subnet.virtual-pc.com/li542871
Michael Hamm
> http://junior.apk.net/~jbarta/
<snip>
>> webpages that have thorough tutorials on the basics of html?
Certainly. Or another half-good one is at http://www.htmlgoodies.com/
Or another good one is at
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/General/Internet/WWW/HTMLPrimer.html
Or another good one, if I may say so, is at the URL below.
Michael Hamm
BA, Math, Sept. '00
msh...@nyu.edu
http://www.crosswinds.net/~msh210/html.html
Jukka Korpela
>Or another good one, if I may say so, is at the URL below.
- -
>http://www.crosswinds.net/~msh210/html.html
I agree, it's very good, and a modern one (many of the older tutorials
are years old, so they may have some old-fashioned attitudes). But as
you write there, "each tutorial is a little different from the
others", and some people get more out of a tutorial written in a style
that suits them, and one might understand the basics better if one
reads them from two (or even more) different presentations, so here's
a collection of other good tutorials (yes, mine is there too):
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/ ( short, but informative )
http://www.awpa.asn.au/html/index.html ( enjoyably written )
http://www.webreference.com/html/tutorials/ ( lots of nice stuff )
http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/html-primer.html
http://www.cwru.edu/help/introHTML/
Your tutorial looks very nice - I'm afraid I can't estimate how easy
it is to people with no previous knowledge, but I suppose it should
pose no serious problems.
A few details:
"A tag, officially called an element, - - " is an unnecessary
terminology confusion. "Tag" is a perfectly correct term - for a
_tag_, like <a href="foo">. An _element_ is something like
<a href="foo">bar</a> (consisting of a start tag and an end tag and
some content between them). _Some_ elements consist of a start tag
only, and the end tag might be omissible, and so on, but I'd suggest
just dropping the statement "officially called an element".
"The values of the attributes, on the other hand, are case-sensitive."
Well, they may or may not be case-sensitive. Align="center" and
align="cEnTeR" are equivalent. It really depends on the attribute; and
even on browsers (e.g. target names are case-insensitive by the
specifications, but browsers are known to get this wrong).
I'm not sure whether a tutorial should discuss the <q> tag at all. As
you mention, "browsers are supposed to put in a quotation mark when
they encounter a <q> or </q> tag, but many don't" (which is an
understatement I'd say - does _any_ widely used browser do that?) and
it's better to use quotation marks instead.
"See there for details" isn't a particularly exemplary way of linking;
it looks odd on paper, and in a Usenet posting, doesn't it? ("See the
descriptions of these elements for details" would be longer, but more
reasonable.)
The <ins> and <del> tags would need some caveats. I don't think there
many browsers (is there any?) that supports them, so if marking
changes is important, some workarounds need to be considered.
The discussion of CSS is very nice too, but I think you should make a
note about setting text color whenever you set background color, and
vice versa. It makes things a bit more complicated, but it's really
part of the game that can't be ignored.
If this list looks long, it's just because i picked up _all_ items I
had some disagreement with, and as some people may know I _am_ picky,
so I hope this will be understood as applauds, as it was intended to
be taken.
--
Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/ *** Happy 19100 to all! ***
Azad
Michael Hamm <msh...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:aLjk4.12$w42....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
> ecs5298 <ecs...@nospamusa.net> wrote, in part:
> > http://junior.apk.net/~jbarta/
> <snip>
> >> webpages that have thorough tutorials on the basics of html?
>
> Certainly. Or another half-good one is at http://www.htmlgoodies.com/
>
> Or another good one is at
> http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/General/Internet/WWW/HTMLPrimer.html
>
> Or another good one, if I may say so, is at the URL below.
>
Michael Hamm
> "A tag, officially called an element, - - " is an unnecessary
> terminology confusion.
And, as you say, incorrect. I've been meaning to change it, but keep
forgetting to. Thanks for the reminder. :-)
> "The values of the attributes, on the other hand, are case-sensitive."
> Well, they may or may not be case-sensitive.
I know. And I indicate, too, that all attribute values need quotation
marks, which also isn't so. I do these in order to make it easier: It
can't hurt to add quotation marks to every attribute, and it can't hurt to
assume every attribute value case-sensitive, so I claim they are.
> I'm not sure whether a tutorial should discuss the <q> tag at all. As
> you mention, "browsers are supposed to put in a quotation mark when
> they encounter a <q> or </q> tag, but many don't" (which is an
> understatement I'd say - does _any_ widely used browser do that?) and
> it's better to use quotation marks instead.
Browsers *do* support it, though not by putting in quotation marks. Using
something like q{font-style:italic} will be read quite nicely by the
newest versions of IE, and, I assume, of Netscape and other browsers
(Opera?).
Incidentally, yes, Lynx puts in quotation marks.
> The discussion of CSS is very nice too
No, it's not. It merely says, "Here's the URL of the spec; read it." I
didn't write anything of my own, and really ought to, especially
considering that I downplayed font-style elements so.
> I think you should make a note about setting text color whenever you set
> background color, and vice versa.
Quite. See my comment immediately above. Whenever I get around to writing
up on CSS, I'll include things like that.
> If this list looks long, it's just because i picked up _all_ items I
> had some disagreement with, and as some people may know I _am_ picky,
> so I hope this will be understood as applauds, as it was intended to
> be taken.
Thanks. :-)
Jukka Korpela
>It can't hurt to add quotation marks to every attribute, and it can't hurt to
>assume every attribute value case-sensitive, so I claim they are.
The first part is evident, and I too try to teach people that way;
there's little reason to tell about different alternatives when one of
them is clearly the best - except that people may start wondering why
others omit the quotation marks.
Attribute values are more tricky. Assuming they are case-sensitive
works in most situations. But if they _really_ were case-sensitive
always, I could write <a name="A"> and <a name="a"> and expect them to
be distinct anchors. There are even situations where such naming would
make sense. But it would be against a specific prohibition in the
specification and it would have unpredictable effects. (The
specification says that _browsers_, or user agents in general, must do
a case-sensitive match for anchor names; but it also says - assumably
because it is known that some browsers fail to comply with that
requirement - that _documents_ must not contain anchor names which
differ in case only.) - It's hard to say whether and how this should
be explained in a primer. Perhaps the simplified statement about
case-sensitivity is OK, if the description of <a name="..."> is
accompanied with a statement saying that one must not use anchor names
which differ in case only (such as "A" and "a").
>Browsers *do* support [<q>], though not by putting in quotation marks. Using
>something like q{font-style:italic} will be read quite nicely by the
>newest versions of IE, and, I assume, of Netscape and other browsers
>(Opera?).
That's an interesting idea, but for example Netscape 4.5 (Win98) does
not seem to recognize the Q element at all, even in that sense I
tested with using <q>foo</q> and <span class="q">foo</q> and a style
sheet like
q, .q { font-style: italic; }
and only the SPAN element gets italicized. The same applies to Opera,
even the newest version (3.62 beta).
>Incidentally, yes, Lynx puts in quotation marks.
And this, together with the possibility that future versions of IE,
Netscape, and other browsers might start behaving according to the
HTML 4.0 specification, supports the conclusion that <q> should _not_
be used. At present and in the foreseeable future, you cannot rely on
browsers putting in quotation marks, _and_ you cannot rely on them
_not_ doing that.
For inline quotations, I'd say the feasible alternatives are using
explicit quotation marks without any HTML markup (except perhaps SPAN
to specify a CLASS for styling purposes, e.g. to present quotations in
a different color) and using <i> markup, which is admittedly
presentational (but not deprecated!).