Talk:HTML/Archive 2

message: *NCSA's Beginner's Guide to HTML
**iirc the ncsa was a major html pioneer so i think this can stay. Plugwash 09:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 
NCSA's Beginner's Guide to HTML


message: *HTMLSource: HTML Tutorials
**a html tutorial... what if anything is special about it Plugwash 09:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: HTMLSource: HTML Tutorials

message: *Dave's HTML Code Guide
**another html tutorial... Plugwash 09:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Dave's HTML Code Guide


message: *HTML Dog
**some kind of guide. Is there anything special about it?
**Nothing special. Remove. Rl 10:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: HTML Dog

message: *Web Standards Awards
**who runs theese awards and are they respected enough to deseve a place here
**If it's notable, someone will add an article for it. Then we could add a "see also" link (maybe see also List of Web Awards or something). For now, I'd remove this as well.
**Yeah, this shouldn't be here. Rufous 15:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Web Standards Awards


message: *W3schools HTML tutorial/reference
**who/what are w3schools is there anything special about them that means we should favour this link over others
*** it is not important who/what they are. important is that they have very good, up to date, clearly written tutorials on html, css, JavaScript and many many more. I am adding this link again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.15.222 (talk • contribs)  7 July 2005
**** Removed again. Rl 7 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)
*****  7 July 2005 08:34 Rl: "(rv to last version by 69.138.24.96; we had a consensus for removal of the w3schools.com link)".  i disagree. we don't have a consensus. it's a valuable link. and, please, RI, don't name my changes vandalisms. thank you. 83.31.15.222
****** a) Try and convince other editors that the tutorials at this address should be there. I don't really care much about any of those links (the only one I liked was rejected), but we can't have single editors add external links just because they claim the source is valuable. b) I don't think I ever named any of your changes vandalism. Rl 7 July 2005 11:04 (UTC)
**Nothing special. Remove. Rl 10:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 
W3schools HTML tutorial/reference


message: *WebMonkey HTML tutorial
**same question as with other tutorials is this special enough to keep? Plugwash 22:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I seem to remember that it was once a well-known resource, but now it's hard to find the content among the ads. I doesn't seem to offer anything over what we already have. Therefore I'd say remove. Rl 22:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Though it pains me to say it (I am/was a big fan of Webmonkey), this has probably been superseded by more modern tutorials. Rufous 23:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Removed. Rl 14:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 
WebMonkey HTML tutorial


message: *The Bare Bones Guide to HTML
** Not to add to the confusion, but I found this a valuable resource back when I did some HTML related coding. Apparently it's been translated to 21 languages which I guess says something about its notability. Rl 10:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 
The Bare Bones Guide to HTML


message: * The HTML Cheatsheet is a very shallow resource; surely there are better ones out there. And, as was pointed out by someone who attempted to remove the link, it contains some deprecated attributes that, while perhaps still widely used, would be a disservice to the Web to continue to encourage. I think it would be nice to have one link to a 'cheat sheet' of some sort, but can anyone provide good reasons to keep this one above all others? (also see above discussion re: the Webmonkey tutorial) — mjb 23:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Webmonkey HTML cheat sheet

message: * Would anyone object to adding a link to The Web Design Group's HTML Help resources? Their HTML guides in particular are thorough, very accurate, and 'socially' responsible. I have used their offline versions for years. — mjb 23:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: htmlhelp.org

message: I'd like to nominate HTML Goodies as a tutorial site. It has helped me with all the basic stuff I need to know about HTML.—King Bob324 16:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <span style="color:Gold;">H</span><span style="color:Mediumspringgreen;">T</span><span style="color:Midnightblue;">M</span><span style="color:Orangered;">L</span> <span style="color:#7FFF00;">Goodies</span>

message: *i find this site very helpful on a day-to-day basis, easy to use tutorials and various java/html generators, i think it deserves a place on the list --Chickendude 03:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: draac.com

message: Oh, and by the way, let's get rid of the "misc" external links section. It is an open invitation for people to add all kind of unrelated stuff. Rl 10:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that several of the links there don't fit the description "Tutorials" :-). I removed two of them where the three of us who have participated in the discussion seem to clearly agree. Rl 16:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: misc section

message: Wouldn't the Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/HTML link in See also be considered self-reference? I'm a relatively new user, so I'm not quite sure what all qualifies as a self-ref. NapoleonB 17:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:ASR 

message: Can I change the doctype to XHTML 1.1? I think that if someone comes here just to find that they may want the latest.
Zoohoo 15:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOCTYPE is outdated 

message: I don't know enough about SGML to say anything definitive on this, but from what I can tell, the differences between SGML on the one hand and HTML and XML on the other hand are quite subtle and esoteric. Does anyone know precisely how HTML or XML adhere to or violate the SGML specifications? I could certainly see how both XML (and therfore XHTML) and HTML (4.01 and earlier) both could be considered applications of SGML, just in slighly different directions. Of course if either HTML or XML violate anything in the SGML specification, then it would be imprecise to say it is an application of SGML but rrather a variation on SGML would be more correct.
Even if both are applications of SGML, the way I had thought of it was that HTML and XML descend directly from SGML while XHTML descends from XML So in that case it would still be fair to differntiate the SGML based HTML from the XML based HTML (XHTML). --Cplot 22:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. But older versions of this article made it sound like XML, and there fore XHTML, didn't derrive from SGML. If you want to put SGML back in there, the please use the word directly with it. Jaxad0127 23:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML, XHTML, XML and their relation to  SGML  

message: Charles Gaudette has just gone through and made lots of changes to the spelling of words to change the dialect of this article to American English.
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style says:
:If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)
I propose that the spelling changes be reverted.  If changes that contravene this guideline aren't reverted, then there's no point in having that rule to begin with, because people can simply change the dialect to suit their wishes and articles will be left that way.
What do other people think?
--Bogtha 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the intent of the guideline is to make the article's "original" dialect canon, or to imply that it's "wrong" for someone to come along and change an article to a different regional convention. Rather, I think it's more just to ensure consistency and thus minimize the temptation for someone to redo spellings throughout an article. So, you shouldn't use the guideline as an excuse to revert the changes (assuming they were applied consistently), citing the original convention as "correct" according to the MoS. Arguably, especially around here, people should be quite used to seeing various spellings. There are usually much more substantive changes that can be made to an article; one wonders why people feel the need to leave their mark in such inconsequential ways.—mjb 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of dialect 

message: Web Browser HTML Support Great resource for checking what works in what browser --70.28.63.102 18:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another excellent HTML resource 

message: Sorry about the spelling errors and thanks to mjb, LLarson and others for catching them. I'm going to use a spell checker from now on :-). --Cplot 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorry about the spelling errors 

message: I'd like to propose a reorganization of the existing article. As often occurs the section have been added in no particular order and with little structure to guide the reader. For reference, here's the current structure.
#Version history of the standard
# HTML markup
## Elements
## Attributes
## Other markup
# Flavors of HTML
# The Document Type Definition
# Separation of style and content
# Publishing HTML with HTTP
# HTML e-mail
# HTML as a hypertext format
# See also
# External links
## W3C Specifications
## Selected tutorials and guides
## Validators
I propose consolidating and rearranging a bit:
# HTML markup
## The Document Type Definition (adding discussion of DTD as the defining language for specifying HTML entities)
## Elements
## Attributes
## Other markup
# Separation of style and content (possibly rename: "Semantic HTML" or "Semantic Web" or somehow bringing these terms into the section.)
# Delivery of HTML
## Publishing HTML with HTTP
## HTML e-mail
## Other delivery (discussing e.g., printed html, optical disks, standard file sharing, etc.)
#History of HTML
##Version history of the standard (perhaps adding more historical commentary on the various specifications).
## Flavors of HTML (rename "Current flavors of HTML")
## HTML as a hypertext format (placed here to contextualize the development of HTML as one of many hypertext markup languages.
## Future directions (this could discuss XHTML 2 and possibly the splintering into HTML 5 if others think this is relevant)
# See also ...
I think this improves the flow of the text nicely. I think it's common in the wiki articles I'm familiar with to include a 'history of' section after the  'what it is' sections. Any thoughts? --Cplot 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did this reorganization. I added some discussions of both history and semantic HTML to round out what was there. I also decided to leave the flavors section as its own section rather than make it the first subsection section of the "history of html section". I think it's too long for that. Please take a look at the Semantic HTML section and make sure that discussion is clear enough. I'd hate for the meanting to be lossed in a section on meaning :-).. Seriously, though it could probably use some second opinions. --Cplot 22:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorganization 

message: I have moved the talk archive from HTML/Archive 1 to Talk:HTML/Archive 1. Archives belong in the talk namespace, not in the article namespace, since they are not articles. Gavia immer 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, my mistake. Thanks for catching that. —mjb 19:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk archive moved 

message: Would this be good to add to tutorials? I've found it to be rather complete and thorough.
: I took a look at the site and i don't think its very helpful. It's quite dated material. Many things are done with HTML style elements and attributes that would be better done with CSS: for example the body background color. From what I could see, there is no mention of CSS at all. Also the tutorial is focussed largely on the transitional DTD when it would be better to focus beginners on the strict DTD, turning to transitional when necessary. --Cplot 20:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, at the end of the tutorial it mentions who it would make things a lot easier to use CSS. It does actually include a tutorial on that (among stuff like XHTML, JavaScript and PHP). I personally think it would be a good idea to show this site rather than the other link, as it shows all of the websites tutorials on the side. 217.23.225.122 09:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  W3Schools 

message: We need a kid's explanation of this. --Pupster21 14:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rarely-edited Simple English version of Wikipedia has a HTML article. Rufous 12:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HTML for kids

message: What do you think about adding a link under the 'See also' section to the HTML Wikia?  I think it would be a benefit since it groups all of the small, misc HTML information into one Wiki site.  HTML Wikia Answerthis 15:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say certainly not, at this early stage of that wiki's development. Rufous 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger. Answerthis 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML Wikia 

message: Maybe it would be good to include the nice picture HTML_element_structure.png‎ from the article "HTML element" near the top of this article about HTML and create a similar picture for the article about XML. The figure is really instructive. Ajgorhoe 23:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice picture