Re: Start with HTML or XHTML? (slightly OT)

Wow.

I certainly didn't expect this level of input when it came to the subject of
what should or should not be coded and later which browsers should or should
not be supported. I know we all have our opinions and thoughts on the
subject, but... WOW. I am thankful this discussion has been kept on a very
professional level this time, without a lot of name-calling or abusing of
other people's thoughts.

"cbirds" specifically: In one of your replies to my comments, you ask what I
meant when I said, "a pity you feel you can't use your real name in your
posts." Reading it again, I can see how that could have come across as
almost, if not entirely rude. That's not how it was meant. What I meant was
that of all of us on this list, you are the only one that comes to mind at
this time who does not post with their real name. Okay, I can't even prove
that others are using their real names, but at least they're using a name
that makes it easier to associate to them. Those of us on this list are
webdesign professionals, granted all at varying levels of expertise, but
still professionals in one sense or another. Some of us are still starting
out, others have quite a number of clients. When I correspond to people on
these lists, in a way, it feels like a kind of business meeting where we're
all sitting around a table discussing ideas and opinions about one thing or
another. By having a name to call the other person, it makes it feel... I
don't know... more like actually knowing that person as a colleague. By not
using a name, you seem to be trying to distance yourself or even disguise
your true identity, and I don't see any reason why you should feel that way
(I'm not saying you do, that's just the impression I get).

Everyone has brought up some really good points regarding the whole "To
Support OldTech or Not to Support OldTech, THAT is The Question" debate. For
many sites, making them work well in NewTech yet work adequately (or
sometimes just as good) in OldTech is easy. For other sites, it requires two
completely separate coding sets. For the site I am currently building, the
latter is the case. The site is quite heavily dependent upon CSS2
technology, particularly the absolute positioning of many elements. It just
can't work in OldTech without a complete, 100% recode for those browsers,
which would mean a dual-coded site with a server-side sniffer. The site will
NOT be closed to OldTech browsers, but users of them just won't get the same
functionality as other users will (instead of being able to read the site's
issues online, OldTech users will be given downloadable links instead --
this is for an online magazine, remember). I'm not COMPLETELY dismissing the
5% of users that don't have NewTech browsers, I'm just not building the site
with them in mind. I think that's a misconception many may have regarding my
statements, due to me not being completely clear about it all. I do want to
be clear about this, though: This is perfectly acceptable for THIS site, and
may not be appropriate for YOUR sites.

Don't get me wrong: I have no love for OldTech browsers AT ALL. I can't
stand them, and I think that's been made pretty clear in my posts. As Lisa
mentioned, OldTech browsers are *IN MY OPINION* a thorn in my side, and I
wish they would just GO AWAY. As others have also mentioned, this won't
happen tomorrow, but if the Mozilla Group can get their engine out of beta
(after four years), I foresee the end of OldTech within a few months of that
happening. It won't go COMPLETELY away, but it will drop, as I personally
feel the Gecko engine is the best rendering engine on the planet because of
it's level of compliance. I have installed on this machine (WinXP Pro) IE6,
NS6.21, OP6.01, Moz0.99, and AOL7. For day-to-day browsing on my own, I use
IE6 *OR* NS6 (yeah, really). I even use OP6 from time to time, but avoid AOL
like the plague because for me, AOL is too confining and sugar-coated. I
could probably very easily add NS4.x to the mix, and am tempted to do so
after the comments "cbirds" has made about it, but I'm resisting, as I'm
trying to make a clean break from OldTech once and for all. I've been
researching Linux as I think I'd like to have a Linux/WinXP dual boot
system, but so far, everything I've found about Linux makes it look a little
out of my league for now. That's a future project, though, as I would like
to have a means of seeing my site designs in something other than
Microsoft's OS's. As for Mac, the only friend I have who has one of those
lives three hours away, and his machines are OLD (MacClassic and 68000
series) and can't run NewTech browsers.

Okay. Enough about the browsers.

Regarding HTML vs XHTML/CSS and which should be taught (which was the
original point of this thread)... Reading the posts, I see I'm not the only
one to believe XHTML/CSS should be the focus of the class. But also after
reading the posts, I have to agree that spending a day or two discussing the
history of HTML would be wise. Of course, that all depends on how long the
course is (I don't believe the course length was ever mentioned).

And regarding another thread that has relevance to this one: when teaching
the code, TEACH THE CODE. Dreamweaver and FrontPage may be good programs,
but I like HomeSite better because it's a code editor, not a WYSIWYG
designer. I would actually encourage that the students learn how to code in
Notepad. Not some kind of super-notepad, but just plain old Notepad -- the
one where you see text, you can add and remove, and that's about it. Make
them learn to write properly-formed code completely without a program's
help, and they will be better webdesigners once the course is finished. Of
course show them how HomeSite, Dreamweaver, et al can be great productivity
tools, but make them learn the code and how to code it all by hand to start.
I think they will benefit most from that.

To everyone: thanks again for keeping this discussion on a professional
level. I have gained a lot of insight over the past couple days, and look
forward to this continuing.

Thanks to all,
Kehvan

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: NORTON ANTI-VIRUS 2002 scanned this email prior to sending. It is free
:: of any known embedded or attached viruses, trojans, or internet worms.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA