- Guides
- Reference
- Misc.
December 2004 Archives
Alt text?
Spot the problem...
<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40657000/jpg/_40657651_little_award203.jpg" alt="Little Britain's David Walliams and Matt Lucas (left)">
Thursday 23 December, 2004 ( 1:23 PM GMT) | Comments (11) / Permanent Link
HTML Dog: The Book
Well, it's not really HTML Dog: The Book, it's XHTML & CSS: A Web Standards Approach, published by New Riders and written by yours truly.
Cutting to the chase, this is the most comprehensive guide to practical, web standard (X)HTML and CSS you'll find. Across the ten chapters ("Getting Started" (syntax, etc.), "Text", "Links", "Images", "Layout", "Lists", "Scripts & Objects", "Tables", "Forms" and "Multi-media"), it acts as a guide and a reference to everything you need to make web pages of the highest quality, covering all of the standard, practical XHTML tags and CSS properties, explaining how to apply structure to content and how best to present it with CSS.
It makes a koala look like the evolutionary ancient mammal it is.
Frankly, I've been a tad peeved with inadequate books that cover this sexy new thing called CSS while overlooking the importance of good markup and with those that focus on HTML with little more than a few pages about CSS bolted on as an apparent afterthought. Good, modern web pages are made with solid XHTML and CSS. They work together. They're best buddies. Partners. Lovers. Symbionts. And what's the best way to use them? With web standards. No font tags allowed. Tables for layout? Pah.
It will probably appeal most to intermediate to advanced designers, as a handy, junk-free reference. But it's just as suitable for ambitious beginners, who want to apply best practices from the outset.
I've written something that I would find useful now, but also something that I think would have come in handy when I first learnt about HTML, CSS and web standards.
I'm especially proud and excited to be working with New Riders, who already dominates my web design bookshelf and together I think we've come up with something that can stand proud in their impressive canon.
Some form of accompanying micro-site will be going up on HTML Dog in the coming months, which will contain more information and should hopefully contain something for everyone - whether you own the book or not.
I'm sure it would make a great stocking filler. Unfortunately even Santa doesn't have to power to arrange that (not this year, anyway)- it won't be available for a few months yet (we're talking March/April at the moment). But you can pre-order it now from amazon.com,
amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.fr, amazon.de and amazon.co.jp.
Friday 3 December, 2004 (11:49 AM GMT) | Comments (suspended) / Permanent Link
Strictly Speaking
XHTML Transitional is a form of HTML commonly used by developers. But I'm not quite sure why. As John Oxton recently mentioned, doesn't it kind of miss the point?
XHTML Transitional is just that - a transition. It is designed to help developers make the move from one technical standard - HTML 4 - to another technical standard - XHTML 1 (Strict). This is a great learning step if you're stuck in your HTML 4 ways, but it shouldn't be seen as an ultimate goal. Making the choice to switch to any flavour of XHTML in the first place surely means that the choice has been made to want to do it properly. Starting with Transitional to get to grips with the XHTML syntax is perfectly understandable but it's just a halfway house.
In practical terms, the difference between the Transitional XHTML and Strict XHTML is nothing more than the former allowing more tags and attributes than the latter. This might sound preferable, but it's not, not in the long run. XHTML Strict strips out most of the presentational crap that we're trying to get away from - separating structure and presentation is the key to building better web pages. By applying XHTML Strict we are helping to ensure that as little presentational junk hangs around in the markup as possible.
One increasingly unjustifiable reason why a developer might opt for Transitional XHTML is if they have an unusually perverse need to accommodate older, rarely used browsers. Presentational elements might result in better presentation in browsers such as Netscape 4 but using such elements will be detrimental to the efficiency, and possibly accessibility, of your web pages.
Another reason might be if you are working with other, less knowledgeable people, or even completely handing over your code to someone (such as a client) who wants to add/alter/mangle it as they please. But in these cases, there's not much point in having a doctype at all (because the doctype-less quirks mode is, essentially, for people who don't know what they're doing).
But let's assume that in most cases we're not going to be handing over our da Vinci to a manic toddler with a pack of crayons. And let's assume that the best approach to web design is to separate structure and presentation as much as is possible, because, well, it is. Now, isn't the only sensible conclusion that strict XHTML is the way to go?
Wednesday 1 December, 2004 ( 2:07 PM GMT) | Comments (29) / Permanent Link
See Also
- Syndicate The Dog Blog - An XML (RSS) feed.
- About HTML Dog