[onlyhereonce]

Hi,

As a total newcomer to the web design/development thing, but something i find fascinating, im just wondering what your recommendation would be on what to learn first and what else and in what order. Ive looked around here and the internet but cant find anything about it.

The order that i thought was this..

• HTML5
  
• CSS
  
• PHP
  
• Java

Anything ive missed?
Am i right in thinking that html5 is replacing html so its best to learn html5 now and forget html/xhtml?

Cheers

Matt

This post has been edited by onlyhereonce: 19 January 2012 - 08:08 AM

[MikeChipshop]

Learn HTML and CSS together. They were designed to work with each other and one without the other is pointless.

[onlyhereonce]

MikeChipshop, on 19 January 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

Learn HTML and CSS together. They were designed to work with each other and one without the other is pointless.

Hi,

So if you were me would you learn HTML and CSS or XHTML and CSS or HTML5 and CSS?

If HTML5 is the more advanced HTML then i cant see the point in learning the old and then having to learn the new aswell?

Matt

[MikeChipshop]

HTM5 is 95% HTML4 just as HTML4 was 95% HTML3 etc etc... So basically just learn HTML5.
Same goes for CSS.

[onlyhereonce]

Is CSS just CSS , there isnt a newer version out is there?

Matt

[MikeChipshop]

Currently CCS3 is in the works with many browsers already supporting lots of its features.

[Wickham]

CSS3 has added features compared with CSS2 so learning CSS2 first will teach you the basics, them learn the extras in CSS3. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/

[onlyhereonce]

Wickham, on 19 January 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

CSS3 has added features compared with CSS2 so learning CSS2 first will teach you the basics, them learn the extras in CSS3. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/

Based on that way of thinking, would it be better for me to learn HTML and CSS so i get the basics and an understanding of the previous and THEN learn HTML5 and CSS3?

Matt

[Skateside]

onlyhereonce, on 19 January 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

Based on that way of thinking, would it be better for me to learn HTML and CSS so i get the basics and an understanding of the previous and THEN learn HTML5 and CSS3?

Matt

Learn HTML5 and CSS3. If things don't work the way you expect them to in older browsers, learn the work-arounds. This will help future-proof your web-building skills.

[hodephdesign]

W3 Schools helped me out loads when I was first starting out (and still a little bit now and then)!

[Renaissance-Design]

hodephdesign, on 20 January 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

W3 Schools helped me out loads when I was first starting out (and still a little bit now and then)!

There are much better resources. In fact, I'd advise steering clear of W3Schools as they're a shady bunch.

[hodephdesign]

Renaissance-Design, on 20 January 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

There are much better resources. In fact, I'd advise steering clear of W3Schools as they're a shady bunch.

Thanks for the tip! Any resources in particular you'd recommend? Maybe I've been doing everything wrong all along...

[Renaissance-Design]

For pre-HTML5 and CSS3 stuff, HTML Dog is brilliant. HTML5 Rocks is pretty good, as is Chris Coyier's CSS Tricks.

This post has been edited by Renaissance-Design: 20 January 2012 - 05:21 PM

[onlyhereonce]

Ive just ordered a book on HTML5 and CSS3 so fingers crossed i should pick it up. Can i just ask a question that might sound really stupid?

What is the normal size that a website is written in? I would imagine 1366x768 is probably the most popular sieze due to the amount of 15" laptops about. If something is written is this size and is then displayed on a 1920x1080 screen would it look weird?

Matt

[MikeChipshop]

To be safe you could start off with a width of 960. This should accommodate most users if you want to play it safe.
What's becoming the defecto standard these days is responsive design which is based on the idea of the site being fluids to all sizes or having stop gap sizes where the design adjusts to fit.

[onlyhereonce]

Hi,

Ive got my book now (Sams HTML and CSS in 24hrs) and something it says in the first few pages has me confused. It says..

XHTML and XML are the new standards for web page creation. This book is XHTML and XML compliant so you wont have to relearn it when it replaces the out of date HTML

Is that true??

This post has been edited by onlyhereonce: 03 February 2012 - 08:16 PM

[MikeChipshop]

Nope.
How old is this book just out of interest?

[onlyhereonce]

Recent i think? Got it from amazon

Matt

[SummerSky]

I've been using html-5-tutorial.com and quite liked it, though the site's not yet finished.

I'm also waiting for HTML & CSS (published Nov 2011) to be delivered (hopefully later today), I'll post back here when I've tried a few chapters.

[Rsrivastava]

U first need to learn html & css.

[onlyhereonce]

SummerSky, on 04 February 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

I've been using html-5-tutorial.com and quite liked it, though the site's not yet finished.

I'm also waiting for HTML & CSS (published Nov 2011) to be delivered (hopefully later today), I'll post back here when I've tried a few chapters.

Thanks for this, ive just ordered it aswell as it looks very up to date and easy to use.

Have you tried it yet?

Matt

[SummerSky]

onlyhereonce, on 04 February 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

Thanks for this, ive just ordered it aswell as it looks very up to date and easy to use.

Have you tried it yet?

Matt

No, it hasn't arrived yet.
I ordered it last Wednesday (chose First Class delivery) and usually Amazon ships the following day, but when I checked, I saw they'd only sent it today. :-/

Maybe Monday then...

[mattds]

XHTML is pretty much the same as HTML but is more strict and less forgiving. Which is a good thing if you want to create standards compliant websites. Learn it and then work with it to become familiar with the language.

CSS stands for Cascading Style Sheets and is used to add style to your XHTML/HTML page eg. background colour, font size etc.

PHP stands for PHP Hypertext Preprocessor and is used to dynamically alter the web page in thousands of ways. Is often used with a MySQL database that holds information.

Java: i suspect you mean JavaScript which is not the same as Java. JavaScript is also used to alter the web page in loads of different ways. I use Jquery which is a JavaScript library that has built in functions to simplifies such things as image scrolling etc.

So in conclusion i would start out with XHTML/CSS then try to get your head around the basics of good programming theory before starting to learn JavaScript/PHP.

Good luck matey

[Wickham]

mattds, on 04 February 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

XHTML is pretty much the same as HTML but is more strict and less forgiving. Which is a good thing if you want to create standards compliant websites. Learn it and then work with it to become familiar with the language.

Remember that XHTML 1.0 coded with content="text/html" in the meta tag (which is what many people do, including this forum) IS NOT XHTML, it's actually processed as HTML but you have to use the coding method for XHTML like lower case style names and closing open tags with /> instead of just > and it's called tag soup because it's a mixture of HTML and XHTML.

Pure XHTML has to have a meta tag with content="application/xhtml+xml" instead of content="text/html" and is so strict that the smallest mistake will result in the page not displaying (only an error message) and IE6 won't process it at all. This page item 1.6
http://dev.w3.org/ht...l#html-vs-xhtml
says The first such concrete syntax is the HTML syntax. This is the format suggested for most authors. It is compatible with most legacy Web browsers.
HTML 4.01 is still the official standard (HTML5 is still in draft but may be used).

HTML and (pure) XHTML diverged a few years ago and are continuing in different directions. Pure XHTML written properly with content="application/xhtml+xml" is intended for specialist applications like XML based languages SVG and MathML and inappropriate for normal websites.

Many people are still using XHTML 1.0 coded with content="text/html" because it seems neater to use lower case everywhere and close all tags. HTML in fact allows a <p> tag without its closing </p> tag and also unclosed <img src="" alt=""> tags. HTML5 doesn't seem to mind if you leave tags unclosed or close them. I think most developers are using HTML5 more and more now, even if some of the features and new elements have to be avoided or dealt with differently because older browsers don't process all the new elements and CSS3 features.

This post has been edited by Wickham: 05 February 2012 - 07:14 AM

[onlyhereonce]

This is all so confusing. Whats the benefit of standards compliant websites? Do they all have to be? Is it just for people who want to work in web design/development?

If i learned HTML and CSS and then HTML5 and CSS3 then that would be enough for a start wouldnt it? WOuld i ever need to learn XHTML or XML?

Then i could move on to php and javascript etc

Matt

This post has been edited by onlyhereonce: 05 February 2012 - 12:17 PM

[oakleaves]

onlyhereonce said:

This is all so confusing. Whats the benefit of standards compliant websites? Do they all have to be?

No, you probably won't get shot, but the reasons why standards were introduced (and the benefits of trying to comply) are found here and here.

[Wickham]

onlyhereonce, on 05 February 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

If i learned HTML and CSS and then HTML5 and CSS3 then that would be enough for a start wouldnt it? WOuld i ever need to learn XHTML or XML?

Then i could move on to php and javascript etc

Good idea. Ignore the pure XHTML coded with meta tag with content="application/xhtml+xml" which has specialist uses.

If I was starting now I think I would go straight to HTML5 and CSS3, but testing in IE7 is very necessary as some new HTML5 and CSS3 features won't work in IE7. Also some other modern browsers only support some of the new features, so test in IE9, IE7, Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera (and on a mac if possible but I never do). Avoid the features that aren't supported yet.

This website is useful to tell you which features are supported by which browser:-
http://caniuse.com/#

This post has been edited by Wickham: 05 February 2012 - 01:31 PM

[onlyhereonce]

Hi,

Having read a bit of this Sams HTML and CSS in 24hrs i can understand what he was saying now when he says "XHTML and XML are the new standards for web page creation" as in effect he is right. HTML5 is more strict and has to have closed tag for instance (from what i have read anyway) so the best thing to do is if i follow this book which is actually XHTML 2.0 (not the pure xhtml).

Am i right in thinking that its better to learn html with the more strict xhtml rules but not as pure xhtml as when i do come to learn html5 i will be already used to lower case and closed tags etc

Matt

[Renaissance-Design]

XHTML2.0 is a dead standard - development was cancelled. What's the publication date of this book?

HTML5 is the current and only standard. It can be written in HTML4 or XHTML1 syntax.

[onlyhereonce]

Renaissance-Design, on 05 February 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

XHTML2.0 is a dead standard - development was cancelled. What's the publication date of this book?

HTML5 is the current and only standard. It can be written in HTML4 or XHTML1 syntax.

Sorry , my bad, it actually does state that its xhtml 1.1

The publication date is 2005.

Am i right in thinking that all the normal text based stuff of html5 and the css stuff in html5 will work on any browser, its just the new stuff , such as video and 3d canvas graphics that is a bit iffy?

If so does anybody know a decent html5 book for people with no experience of html at all?

Matt

This post has been edited by onlyhereonce: 05 February 2012 - 05:04 PM

[Wickham]

It's all very confusing and I can understand why you are muddled. The guys that set these standards did originally expect XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 to supersede HTML 4.01, but then they decided to make XHTML just for special uses with content="application/xhtml+xml" which you should not use for normal websites. XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 are dangerous to use for a normal website. XHTML 1.0 which many people still use was only intended as a half-way situation between HTML and XHTML but that scenario is now dead as HTML5 is being finalised and that is the future for normal websites.

I suggest that you use HTML 5 with the XHTML syntax (ie with closed tags like /> instead of just > and also use lower case for all style element and attribute names and use content="text/html" in the meta tag so that it is in fact processed as HTML but uses the cleaner syntax of XHTML. Confused?

[onlyhereonce]

Wickham, on 05 February 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

It's all very confusing and I can understand why you are muddled. The guys that set these standards did originally expect XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 to supersede HTML 4.01, but then they decided to make XHTML just for special uses with content="application/xhtml+xml" which you should not use for normal websites. XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 are dangerous to use for a normal website. XHTML 1.0 which many people still use was only intended as a half-way situation between HTML and XHTML but that scenario is now dead as HTML5 is being finalised and that is the future for normal websites.

I suggest that you use HTML 5 with the XHTML syntax (ie with closed tags like /> instead of just > and also use lower case for all style element and attribute names and use content="text/html" in the meta tag so that it is in fact processed as HTML but uses the cleaner syntax of XHTML. Confused?

So basically your saying to learn html and css, use the xhtml rules of closing tags and lowercase but make sure i put content="text/html" at the top so the web knows its to be translated as html and not xhtml

Matt

[dubai web design]

Hello
I suggest you to learn first HTML and CSS. These languages are very easy to learn for example when i started learning
HTML i have learned it in one day so every one can. That will strong your base after that XHTML or html5 all are same so its upon u but its just a suggestion then after that java script and then php.

[mattds]

Wickham, on 05 February 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

Remember that XHTML 1.0 coded with content="text/html" in the meta tag (which is what many people do, including this forum) IS NOT XHTML, it's actually processed as HTML but you have to use the coding method for XHTML like lower case style names and closing open tags with /> instead of just > and it's called tag soup because it's a mixture of HTML and XHTML.

Pure XHTML has to have a meta tag with content="application/xhtml+xml" instead of content="text/html" and is so strict that the smallest mistake will result in the page not displaying (only an error message) and IE6 won't process it at all. This page item 1.6
http://dev.w3.org/ht...l#html-vs-xhtml
says The first such concrete syntax is the HTML syntax. This is the format suggested for most authors. It is compatible with most legacy Web browsers.
HTML 4.01 is still the official standard (HTML5 is still in draft but may be used).

HTML and (pure) XHTML diverged a few years ago and are continuing in different directions. Pure XHTML written properly with content="application/xhtml+xml" is intended for specialist applications like XML based languages SVG and MathML and inappropriate for normal websites.

Many people are still using XHTML 1.0 coded with content="text/html" because it seems neater to use lower case everywhere and close all tags. HTML in fact allows a <p> tag without its closing </p> tag and also unclosed <img src="" alt=""> tags. HTML5 doesn't seem to mind if you leave tags unclosed or close them. I think most developers are using HTML5 more and more now, even if some of the features and new elements have to be avoided or dealt with differently because older browsers don't process all the new elements and CSS3 features.

Thanks for clearing that up. i've learnt something there

I always code HTML with closing tags as i was led to believe this is 'best practice' but assumed I was coding in XHTML as i declared this in my doctype as XHTML Transitional.

I'm sure this was explained to me when i first got in to HTML lol

[Wickham]

dubai web design, on 05 February 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Hello
... XHTML or html5 all are same ...

That's not always true. HTML5 and XHTML5 (often stated as X/HTML5 note the /) are the same if you use the meta tag with content="text/html" a few lines later because you are telling the browser to process as HTML. The only difference in these cases should be the syntax (ie closing tags and lower case for elements and attributes. The official HTML4 syntax in fact says that all elements should be in capitals and all attributes should be lower case, but HTML is case insensitive so you can use either and most people prefer to use the XHTML syntax which is case sensitive).

However, this official site
http://en.wikipedia..../XHTML#overview
says Of the two serializations, the W3C suggests that most authors use the HTML syntax, rather than the XHTML syntax. so it's still a pretty chaotic situation with most developers preferring the XHTML syntax.

XHTML with a meta tag with content="application/xhtml+xml" or with <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> above the doctype is the real XHTML and should not be used for normal websites.

This post has been edited by Wickham: 06 February 2012 - 07:55 AM

[mantis]

Its really easy to get bogged down with the details of this stuff but once you start learning it it'll make more sense. Perhaps try to find a recent beginners tutorial and start learning. Even if you learn HTML or XHTML most of the rules are the same and it will probably become clear as you learn. A recent tutorial will probably focus on HTML5 and CSS3 and there are probably some good links on this forum. If you don't want to invest the time in finding a free one there are payable subscriptions to tutorial sites such as lynda.com or treehouse to name a few.
Good luck

[Renaissance-Design]

If it wasn't for bloody IE not understanding application/xhtml+xml we'd all be using XHTML1.1 (or something derived from it) by now.

Anything that didn't validate would throw an XML error instead of a best-guess rendering, and there wouldn't be so much bad markup in the wild.