HTML lesson

[Grok]

Sure you, me, St0rm, peofeoknight, and lots of other people could really rip the lesson apart.  But if we did, we would be discouraging beginners and intermediate people from putting their work in public, to help others.  That's why I offered praise for a pretty good introductory lesson, rather than go into detail about the state of the web today, and the newer technologies.

[MyndFyre]

Sure you, me, St0rm, peofeoknight, and lots of other people could really rip the lesson apart.  But if we did, we would be discouraging beginners and intermediate people from putting their work in public, to help others.  That's why I offered praise for a pretty good introductory lesson, rather than go into detail about the state of the web today, and the newer technologies.

I was totally not meaning to "rip the lesson apart" -- I hadn't even read through the entire lesson.  The lesson was, in fact, about four months old.  I just wanted to tack on a little extra info for people who might want to be a little more standards-compliant (and to let them know about stuff like the <br /> tags -- the first time I saw it, I had no idea what it meant).

What I did read -- the info on formatting and links -- was very helpful I thought, and overall I did think it was a good post.  It was certainly not my intention to rip the lesson apart, or even remotely to criticize it.

[quasi-modo]

Shoot, I still use html 4.01 transitional. I use xhtml 1.1 too of course, but when I get form intensive I go back to trans because I sort of enjoy my happy little asp.net event aware controls.... I could use request.forms and go back to the world of client side forms, but then I might as well be using asp classic. So instead of going through all the effort of having xhtml with asp.net I just go back to transitional. Its all good as long as it is valid  

[MyndFyre]

You know, I recently created a website where I set the DTD to XHTML 1.0 strict.  I don't know if ASP.NET is honoring that, but it's just a side-note.

[DecA]

Hmm, this was a very long time ago.  Thanks for pointing out all the things I could have done, btw.  Sorry i never wrote a follow up lesson to this.

[quasi-modo]

You know, I recently created a website where I set the DTD to XHTML 1.0 strict.  I don't know if ASP.NET is honoring that, but it's just a side-note.

It depends on what you do with asp.net. If you use the server side form then do not hold your breath. Asp.net likes to output the name attribute which is not valid xhtml. But really its no big deal, it does not create an accessibility problem. Validation is not a must, accessibility is, but if your page is invalid because of one stupid attribute that will not affect th accessibility of the site then you loose a gold star... so what. If you do things without the server side form, with the html form and the action (which I sometimes do for some more control) then you will not have problems with validation but you forsake those quasi-event-oriented features (big deal). I still use html 4 a lot because it is still in use, and will continue to be in use for a long time. Xhtml is cool, but it has some disadvantages, like browser support issues, so html4 is still probably the way to go. If you use html4 strict you should not have problems getting asp.net to validate.