desirecampbell wrote:I still don't understand how separating the layout into two files makes it easier to find problems. Taking the content out (which is what I do with php queries) would separate the layout problems from the content problems (which would make it easier) but splitting up the layout never helped me.
That's up to personal preference, I guess.
But atleast for myself I've always found it easier to track a problem when two main halfes of my code are seperated.
desirecampbell wrote:Again, you're trying to insult me - and just sounding foolish. I use <br> instead of <br />. So? I know I should use <br /> (and I shouldn't be using <font> at all my buddy nags me about it all the time) but that doesn't mean I don't understand.
I am not trying to insult you, I am trying to enlighten you, because you obviously don't understand or you wouldn't be pushing deprecated code.
desirecampbell wrote:You actually haven't said anything. You've said 'it's too old, don't use it' and I asked why, and you said 'because the W3C said so'. You seem to be under the impression I'm trying to get Dayspring to ignore DIV - I'm not. I'm trying to get him to learn the basics before he tackles more complex and abstract code.
I've said a lot, but you would rather ignore what I've said as a whole, and search for ways to find flaws with the current standards of code, and push outdated and obsolete methods. And as I've said before, if this were 03' then yes that would be the basics, but since it is not, the basics consist of 4 very important tags: <div>, <p>, <span>, and <br />.
There are no if's, and's, or but's about it, the standard changes, and you should change with them, but even if you don't, just don't keep trying to teach someone archaic coding methods, as you will only lead that person to more confusion than just having him, or her work with the current standard of code.
And like I said before, div isn't difficult to use.
desirecampbell wrote:You said "just because you can use old code doesn't mean you should, or for that matter, should learn it." You give no reason why not to use them other than "the W3C said not to".
If you want another reason, we can go with CSS. New tags are designed to utilize CSS natively, not as a secondary function. CSS is now the primary standard for changing style attributes with anything.
Such an answere should be good enough for even you.
desirecampbell wrote:Is there any reason to think <table> will stop being supported (by
every browser) soon? No.
Who is to say? But in the mean time, just because it's supported doesn't mean you should use it over superior, and better developed code that has been made available in its stead. This change was done on purpose, in order to give webdesigners more freedom in their coding than traditional methods would allow, and for that we get a transitional tag (div) that isn't hindered by tabular display settings that tables suffer from (because it isn't a table.) So in the end, learning tables first (and calling it the basics) would only hurt someones comprehention, because div's aren't tables, and they don't perform like tables (and they take up less space than your average table, in the root html) and so unless you make them act like tables, you won't get a result that acts like tables.
desirecampbell wrote:Is there any reason to think that learning absolute positioning and DIV is easier than just <table>? No.
Yes, actually. The table is comprised of 6 tags, <table></table>, <tr></tr>, and <td></td>, however the div is only two.
Now when working with divs, it all becomes exceedingly easy to use right from the get-go after you've set your position: absolute; and your top: #px; right: #;.
It's quicker, easier, and prevents a lot of the tabular muddling one might need to do if he/she has more than one table on the page.
desirecampbell wrote:Will learning DIV and AP give Dayspring a better understanding of HTML and page structure than table would? No.
Tables "seem" easier than DIVs - wouldn't that be a good thing to tell Dayspring AFTER he learns table? If table is easier to understand, then he should learn THAT first THEN convert to DIV. Table can be learned in minutes, and the layout of a table can easily be interpited as a page's layout - from there he can learn to use DIV the same way - but FIRST he must learn table to connect the two.
Stop answering your own questions because you've answered incorrectly. For one, page structure doesn't have much to do with tables, but if he really wants to get a feel more them, he should let a double bordered div feel out the edges (since they do that by default, without any width set to them) which will be the best 'structure' he could find. And no, he shouldn't learn it first, because when it comes to HTML (and even PHP) you should not use deprecated code, because the tags aren't CSS flexible.
Flexibility is a huge part of it, and if you want to justify with yourself that its okay to use archaic methods because "you can", then go right ahead, but don't try to teach someone your outdated style, because you'll fuck that person all up.
As well, it doesn't really matter where a person starts. If they want to learn the language, they can jump in anywhere and learn it no problem. As well, structure should be the least of your worries, since people come by that knowledge quickly, and easily after putting nose to the grind stone for a little while.
desirecampbell wrote:And don't try to justify throwing out <table> altogether just because the W3C said so. I'm not telling him to never use DIV, I'm telling him to learn the basics, then learn the more advanced functions. DIV is more advanced than table (at least for whole page structure) so maybe, just maybe, he should learn table
first.
I do justify it, because it's a standard. Old code is, was, and has been thrown out quite awhile ago, get with the program and stop trying to make me think that using outdated code isn't anything more than you rebelling the standard.
desirecampbell wrote:Somebody's got a bug up their butt. It's nothing personal, man, just cool off. You're going all "Standards Nazi" on me. I'm just helping out my friend and asking you a couple questions: don't take it as an affront to your masculinity.
First, it isn't a front to any masculinity, and secondly I take coding seriously, and by the looks of it, far more seriously than you. My free time is consumed by two things, do you know what they are? Coding HTML, and PHP, coupled with Videogames. I do it because I enjoy it, and I never miss an evening to code something, no matter how irrelevant, to always stay in practice. Coding is my life blood, and I know it well.
I know new code, I know old code, and back when the standard was changed I was sad to see the old code go, because I wasn't ready to change things yet, but I did anyway because the overall good outweighed the bad, with CSS flexibility. Through that, I came to see that the div's I had tryed to ignore, were far easier to use, and far better suited for development than tabular constraint could offer, because they could do things tables couldn't.
I take coding as seriously as any person can after 6 years of of learning, and designing, and I changed my coding style when a new form of the language came, because it offers assets that the archaic methods could never dream of having. So I don't care if you code in an archaic method, but don't try to find faults with the standards, justify old code as still being acceptable to use, or teach someone old code, because that is bad from any way you look at it. (And will make things 10x harder for Dayspring to learn in the end. It will be far easier for him to learn the new standard first, than secondary.)[In fact, he really doesn't even need to learn old code at all.]
tarsonis wrote:What is the difference between <br> and <br />?
You must close all tags that don't have a closing tag, with the new standard.
tarsonis wrote:On another note, avoid notepad if you can..use a tool like Dreamweaver where you can code by hand but still helps you along the way, since it does things like color coding tags so you can read it better, viewing the page as it looks as you go along, etc. Notepad is ok for starting out though.
No, you've got it backwards Tarsonis. Notepad is good for long term coding, and is the best, most flexible utility to use when coding HTML, or PHP. WYSIWYG editors are only good for starting out, but should be abandoned as soon as possible, because they generally aren't the most up-to-date as far as their HTML output is concerned.
But either way, Notepad is the best you can get for coding.
Anyway....
This thread is going no where quickly, so I am going to leave it at that. If Dayspring wants to learn archaic code, that's his choice, but I've said all I can say. So if you still choose to support deprecated code, that's up to you, but I really suggest you not trying to teach it to people.
so we need to stop using tables.
