Forum Moderators: open
I have been able to piece together a great deal of information and understanding from a wide variety of resources, but is there a tutorial somewhere to make sense of it all? Or at least some reliable rule-of-thumb for application/"translation" of things (formatting, validation results, etc.)?
Finding Your Way at W3C [w3.org]
HTML 4.0 [htmlhelp.com...]
CSS1 [htmlhelp.com...]
They are very good at explaining the difficult stuff, and they link to the relevant places on W3C for the nitty-gritty detail.
Also, you can download the whole thing and have it on your local system (http://www.htmlhelp.com/distribution/).
René.
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if there's a definitive site that helps a person to understand the technical reports. I keep finding myself being referred to them from a variety of sources, but when I get there, the tech stuff is sometimes over my head. I have found lots of sites that explain some of the information, but no one site that really explains anything in any real depth. This is especially true with understanding the results for the CSS and/or the HTML validators at W3C.
Any suggestions? Or am I just stuck with trying to piece things together from a wide variety of sites then hoping it'll make sense when I get to W3C, like I've been doing?
W3Schools.org is also a great place to learn. I've learned so very many wrong "facts" from various web sites over the years. So, I'm glad to know this is one place that will be serving up the straight story.
w3.org is very large, and unless you've used it plenty, it can be hard to get around, although, I must say, it's pretty good for a large site anyway.
If you're fairly newbie, and see links to RFC's, I'd take tedster's suggestions. I've been in the computer business for quite a while, and most of the RFC's still are over my head - I can pick up some info from them by examples.
Stay away from DTD's also - they're worse than the RFCs.
As far as the validators - they've always been cryptic at times, because they'll sometimes show an error on a line that really is caused from a line above it. The error is always correct, but it is not intuitive at first. And many times there's just not verbage in the error message.
But when I'm stuck on the HTML validator, I'll always go first to either:
[w3.org...]
or
[w3.org...]
You can look them up right there quickly without having to wade in from top down on the site and try to decide which page to go to.
I'll always go for the examples first - from then on, it's just trial and error and experience and google searches - AND WebmasterWorld.
As for the RTCs, yup! They've been giving me trouble. I don't recall if I've hit any DTDs, but I'll try to avoid 'em for awhile. Thanks, bobriggs. I'll try poking around the html elements and attributes sections a bit more on W3C's site. I've been there plenty, but never thought about validation errors being caused by the line above, rather than the one noted. I'll have to check that out a bit more also.
As for using WebmasterWorld. Just found you guys a few weeks ago and have been trying to catch up with everything in a big hurry! You folks are probably the best resource I've found so far for pretty much every topic I can think of. Don't know how I missed you when I started looking around a few years ago. Guess it's 'cause I was always leary of forums. Silly me! Wish I'd know how great a resource they were. (Okay, not all of 'em. But this one sure is!) :)
Stay away from DTD's also
Why? They are easy to read and the most concise way of defining things. And the authors of the various specs have taken a lot of time to explain the DTD notation: 3.3 How to read the HTML DTD [w3.org], 6 Notation [w3.org]
I use the annotated XHTML-1.0-Strict DTD [w3.org] quite often. It takes less time to look up elements and their attributes. It´s easy to find out what type the attribute values may take.
All in all I think the W3C does a good job with its specifications: good introductions, mostly precise definitions, extensive examples and commented DTDs.
Andreas
Why? They are easy to read and the most concise way of defining things.
<!ELEMENT h1 %Inline;>
<!ATTLIST h1
%attrs;
%TextAlign;
>
Really? Makes for interesting reading. You like that stuff?
It's gobbledygook to me.
It takes less time to look up elements and their attributes.Rubbish.
Aside from that sub-thread - Syren-Song (like the nic btw) I'm still learning my way around W3C too. It's a big animal and they are not concerned with speaking to the layperson. If you want to understand what they're writing (including DTDs, schemas, and other markup languages) then your diet for the next few weeks will be a steady supply of reading. I think you can find the answers you need within their website (and others). Don't despair - it takes time.
And you can always come here to WebmasterWorld and post a question. We're all bored silly and dying to take on a good challenge. ;)
I'm still learning my way around W3C too. It's a big animal and they are not concerned with speaking to the layperson.
Thanks, lorax! I thought it was just me. Everyone seems to point you in the direction of W3C, but they don't tell you how confusing it can be. I just figured I was missing something basic somewhere on the site or off about translating what I find.
Would running the pages through Babelfish help W3C make more sense? ;)
As for posting questions here, not a problem! I've already started to increase my learning curve to the point where I need some of those runs the truckers use going through Colorado and Virginia mountains to slow my brain down when I sign off the forum! You know - the uphill slopes that help slow 'em down when their brakes haven't got the power?!
You folks are a big help in the understanding department. I'm just hoping I'll be able to give back at least a little of what I'm getting from this place! :)
