Talk:HyperText Markup Language

• todo-list of HyperText Markup Language

• Size: 11,300 words (Sep 2008)
• Started: 5 August 2003
• Recent changes
• All subpages
• Headings case: Currently inconsistent, mixing sentence case ("Heading title") with title case ("Heading Title")

It's a good idea to write a book about HTML (though it would be better about web design and web building).

However what has been written here seems to be all wrong! First writing simple web pages is not programming at all. It is marking up content of the page. Writing a CSS stylesheet is not programming either. Using DOM and for example Javascript to produce DHTML effect can be called programming.

So let's start all over again. First I think one should consider

• audience
• aim
• scope
• methodology to archieve the aim
• multimedia to use in the book

Kpjas 20:38 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Writing CSS can be called programming. The other day I had to come up with a cross-browser effect to add bullets to list items only on hover. This is easy enough using JavaScript and rollover images, but the cooler effect - and quicker loading - is to use li {list-style-type: none;} a:hover li {list-style-type: disc;} a:hover {list-style-type: disc;}. Coming up with this code required using the same skills/thought processes as if I had done the same thing using JS and the DOM.

I think there should be a distinction between a markup language languages like HTML, programming languages like Java, C++ and scripting languages. HTML and CSS should not be categorized under Programming Languages as it would confuse those who are unfamiliar with what is a progamming language. Perhaps, we can make a book on WebDesign instead and clump HTML, CSS, etc under that instead of under Programming Languages. --VoeD 2 Nov 2003

CSS is a markup language, and cannot be considered a programming language. Markup may be used to generate interesting effects, but it remains markup. The fact that programming languages can generate output similar to markup is irrelevant to its classification.

--Eibwen 06:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree -- let's make one big book called something like web design and web building or perhaps simply web building. Then we can discuss the "best practices" in web building -- whether it's HTML, Programming:XHTML, XHTML (XML), CSS, XML, DHTML (aka JavaScript), AJAX, Flash (Macromedia Flash MX: Formtweening ?), RSS, or something that none of heard of when we started the book, but now everyone is doing it. This lets us make recommendations -- if you want to start a blog, we can immediately recommend a few free blog sites (and what features to look for in a blog site). Same for "start a wiki". Or "install a web server". Instead of making them wade through a bunch of irrelevant-to-them stuff about HTML tags, JavaScript, etc. Web advertising (This also makes it easier for us to add a couple of paragraphs about some new upcoming technology, then a few months later delete it if it's a flash in the pan, or else split it into it's own Wikibook if it catches on). --DavidCary 20:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great, it looks like someone has already done this at Web Design. --DavidCary 04:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

FIXME: move VoeD's tip and the following links to a page in a wikibook (where?) that discusses rollovers.

• http://www.alistapart.com/articles/taminglists/
• http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic/index.htm

Can't we upload HTML files and link to them with [[media:]] links? --Geoffrey 03:48 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Should a Free book recommend using Internet explorer, especially considering that it is about 3 years behind the state of the art in web browsers? Arvindn

Fixed -- Paddu 12:13, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Moreover, should any particular browser be recommended at all? Aside from the most standards complaint browser (I believe it's Mozilla Firefox), any browser recommedations are purely subjective. However, the point should be made that different browsers render markup differently and several sections of the specification state that the browser itself is to govern the appearance of a particular "widget" (not all browsers conform to the specifications).

--Eibwen 06:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I started working on this this morning. So far I've just copied the intoductory information from the HTML article in the Wikipedia to the introduction in this article, made sense and the text was already linked. I guess I should read up on how to link articles. Just thought I'd pitch in.

The HTML img tag syntax page uses the XHTML example. While modern browsers may be able to parse "self-closing" tags (eg <img />, it is not proper HTML (whether such pages validate as HTML is another matter entirely, albeit an interesting one). This is probably prevalent throughout the site.

World Wide Web Consortium HTML 4.01 Specification

--Eibwen 06:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd guess that it's perfectly valid (at least if the W3C recommendation to put a space before the slash is followed) - the W3C recommend it, and HTML has always been supposed to degrade gracefully. On this subject, though, the examples in the text aren't valid HTML at all! There's no doctype. Perhaps this would be a bit much to throw at beginners, so I'd recommend a piecewise approach to building up the HTML covered: HTML tags, HEAD and BODY tags, content, and then the doctype.

- Perey 18:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not recommended per se, it's recommended as the best solution to a transition style, i.e. when the page is intended to be transferred into XHTML at a future point without requiring a major rewrite.

The closing slash on empty elements can lead to confusion in some browsers strictly following the SGML specifications (according to which, if I remember correctly, the syntax <img src="..." /> and <img src="..." >/ are identical), which will render the slash as if placed after the element tag, not within it, other browsers' rendering might break (probably not an issue with 21st century generations of browsers) and in the case of elements requiring a closing tag as per HTML 4.01, this may lead to the tag being treated as an opening tag that is never closed (or treated as automatically closed at the end of its containing element).

It's litterally a Best Current Practice for this specific purpose, but not for HTML 4.01 in general.

Well-formdness, validity (i.e. full HTML 4.01 Strict compliance -- the Transitional doctype is intended to be a transitional aid for people used to HTML 3.2 or garden shed markup) and semantic markup should be a key goal of this book if it shouldn't end up being worth no more than any of the random "HTML 4" books on the market since the 1990s, but this is still a book about clean HTML 4.01 (if more versions should be covered, please keep them seperate), not wannabe-XHTML. -- Ashmodai 00:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bold and italic are "discouraged" by W3 [1].

I'm going to replace with <em> and <strong>. --DavidCary 20:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many web browsers display something like

   <A href="/index.html"
   <IMG SRC="logo.png" 
   ALT=""></A>

with a thick blue rectangle around the image.

To get rid of that blue rectangle, many people add

   border="0"

something like this:

   <A href="/index.html"
   <IMG SRC="logo.png" 
   border="0" ALT=""></A>

(For example, as of 2005 the Google Search Bar at Google http://www.google.com/searchcode.html still used

   border="0"

. )

However, http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#h-13.7.3 informs us that the "border" attribute is deprecated.

The modern way to get the same effect is with CSS. Leave the HTML as simply

   <A href="/index.html"
   <IMG SRC="logo.png" 
   ALT=""></A>

. Add something like this to the head of your HTML file, then *all* images will (by default) have no border.

   <STYLE type="text/css">
   img {
       border-style: none;
   }
   </STYLE>

(one could get basically the same effect with any of:

• border-style: none;
• border-color: transparent;
• border-width: 0;

)

--DavidCary 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Technically HTML is a markup language and JavaScript is a scripting language. Compiled languages like C++ and Java are programming languages. --CarbonUnit

I agree that HTML isn't a "programming language". Let's move it from "Programming:HTML" to somewhere in the Web Design book. --DavidCary 16:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is anyone still working on this? I'd love to help. I'm a bit inexperienced as far as anything Wiki is concerned, but I'm a quick learner. --twistofreality 21:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have some ideas that I think would be productive, but, being new to Wikibooks as I am, I'm hesitant to start editing things without support from previous contributors. I taught myself HTML, Javascript, and Cascading Style Sheets six years ago using nothing but online tutorials, so I believe that I have a rough idea of what someone who has never attempted to build a web page is looking for in a reference guide and textbook. For instance:

• The easiest approach for a beginner's module may be to write the text with a specific browser in mind (I learned on Internet Explorer, but Safari and Firefox are both gaining popularity). Later discussions in an intermediate or advanced module could stress cross-browser design and standards compliance.
• The language and structure may need to be improved to appeal to individuals who have little to no experience with web design or computers in general. With personal computing becoming so wide-spread, many people who are barely interested in why or how their computers work are interested in building web pages for various reasons. Many will resort to WYSIWYG editors that produce awful code, but many will strive to learn the languages for themselves, as I did. Some examples of modifications to consider are:
  1. The descriptions of the elements of the "simple document." They seem a bit convoluted and may scare of novices.
  2. The submodules' titles. They may seem to contain jargon for those not "in the know." Is it safe to assume that someone unfamiliar with HTML is going to know what a form, table, layer, or frame is?
• Few people want to learn HTML solely; rather, people who seek out knowledge of HTML often want to design a web page, which can encompass several different languages and design methodologies. A concerted effort should be made to make beginning, intermediate, and advanced information on JavaScript and CSS more readily available from the HTML modules where appropriate. Efforts should also be made to standardize the layout and content struction of all web-design related modules to ensure ease of use.
• Finally, consideration should be made for the development of exercises, the results of which could be displayed as screen shots within the module. In my opinion, reading about any programming/markup language is boring; being able to utilize techniques and see an actual product shortly after a concept is introduced and discussed will almost certainly promote comprehension.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. --twistofreality 02:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

As this is a HTML book, it should only cover HTML. Strict HTML 4.01 as per its Specification does not have any strictly presentational features. Cross-browser compliance is therefore not an issue unless the behavior of the elements strongly varies across mainstream browsers (abbr and acronym for example don't behave identically in MSIE). The primary scope of this book should be semantic markup, rather than presentation, so concepts like the difference between lists, the hierarchy of headers and the like should be described in-depth and tables should not be described as presentational tools (while they can be (ab)used in that way without strictly violating the Specs, there are other means to achieve a tabular layout in CSS-compliant browsers and as the modern W3C chant goes: HTML is not a presentational language) and be described in their entirety (tables in HTML have lots of features, so don't just stick to the good old table->tr->td model). And don't you dare leaving all the things that can and should go in the head element out -- just because not many browsers take note of the link element (other than for stylesheets) doesn't mean it should be taught -- although it should not be the primary focus.

Since HTML and CSS work hand-in-hand, this relation should be described in one of the later chapters. Stylesheets, alternate stylesheets, classes and IDs need to be explained (an ID is more than a unique class anyway), although this book should not explain CSS syntax and functionality in full detail, that's what the CSS book is for. -- Ashmodai 00:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm new to the Markup Languages, and I think it is a good idea to separate all those languages in three sorts of languages: Markup Languages, Scripting Languages and Programming Languages.

I hope that the writers of the lessons will emphasize the abilities with using each language.

Suppose that an absolute beginner decided to lean programming, an he visited this article in Wikipedia. I guess he will start with the html to learn programming, wich is not wise from him, since he will never bring any application to existence with language. This is also the same case of JavaScript. Although this last language is something stronger than the html/ xhtml or CSS. I don't believe people can make any application with it. The other point is that it is often unclear to understand the use/abilities of the scripts if the author, wouldn't make it clear. As example I learnt some basics of JavaScript but i can hardly know what i can do with it.Htmlb 16:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am new to HTML and website building. I liked going through the chapter on making tables. It helped with the basic concepts and how to read html markup in general. I appreciate the time and effort put into this work. Thanks again. 8-19-05

If most browsers prefer the Object element, why doesn't the page teach that to the user? Why doesn't the page teach the user how to add music to the page using the object element? As you see, there really is no reason to put this under "Techniques that shouldn't be used" when there is a valid way that should be used to add music! Catch my drift?

[user:VenomousNinja]

No offense, but Frontpage is horrid. It should -not- be suggested for any beginner. It adds bits of unnecessary text that make learning from it nearly impossible, and editing it worse.

I totally agree, what I do is type the html source in notepad and save it as a .html document rather than a .txt, try it out. Also, a free html editor (open source) is out there. I use it sometimes, it is okay. It is called Nvu. Another one called Notpad++ is excellent too. These two are used if you want the syntax highlighted when you are editing. --Grich 01:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The title should be considered, as HTML is not programming, but a markup language as noted by others.

Is there a way to have a link bring up a 'Save as...' box by default rather than try opening the linked to file inside the browser. More specifically, I have a long lecture on my site that opens in visitors' browsers rather than offering to be downloaded. I know visitors can right-click on the link to get a 'Save as...' box, but I would rather 'Save as...' be the default action whenever the link is clicked.

Yeah, this is when you get into a Server lngauge called PHP. Were you can let a user download a file. Look it up on the wikibooks. I don't know any other way. Sorry. --Grich 09:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

HTML isn't a programming language. It's a markup language. I don't think you can consider it programming any more than the very wiki markup on this page. Shouldn't it be called HTML formatting rather? --Jocke pirat 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, its an important part of programming. The XML format is used alot in programming. Within HTML, you can incorporate JAVASCRIPT and PHP. It should be classed amoungst Programming and Web Developement. --Grich 09:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Support renaming. A "HTML Programming" book would actually need to be a book about JavaScript, for which we already have one. That XML, of which XHTML is just a species, can be used for all kinds of things around the world including programming has no bearing on whether HTML is a programming language or has to do with programming. That said, HTML indeed needs to be marked up or encoded. Proposals: "Marking up HTML", "Mastering HTML", "HTML Guide", "A Guide to HTML". I am uncertain about articles: "the", "a". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a good idea to merge HTML with CSS and XHTML with XML. It's best to learn XHTML first and then move to CSS and/or XML. It doesn't make any sense to learn XML first. Or to learn CSS and HTML at the same time. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I agree that we should cover the preliminary stuff in the earlier chapters of a book, and the dependent stuff in the later chapters of the same book, rather than trying to cover everything in the first chapter. --DavidCary (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article you wish to place is a redirect to a non-existent article, so there is no point. -- anonymous

Huh? --DavidCary (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suggest merging HTML into HTML Programming.

Although, as I've said earlier, I think "HTML Programming" is not a very good name. Is it too late to rename this whole book to Web Design? --DavidCary (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Title. AFAIK, the subject of web design goes far beyond HTML, being related to book design, to the choice of colors, fonts, including type faces and display faces, various layouts of pages, the software tools supporting the process, and the like. In contrast to this, this book so far has been a mixture of a reference and a user guide to HTML, the specific mark up language. Web design would need to encompass CSS, on which there is a standalone book: Cascading Style Sheets. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

There has been a recent attempt to remove the chapter Conditional Comments, per it's not being part of the standard HTML. I think the book should better document all that there is, even if supported only by certain browsers. How else are the readers going to find out about such comments when they see them in HTML? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The only way to move to the next section is to go back to the contents and click on the next section. This is not the case with other books on wikibooks, which have a link to the next section on the top right of the page.

Re: "A text editor and a web browser is all you need to create web pages, view your handiwork, and share information with others all over the world"

Granted I am not an expert, but if this statement is correct one should be able to create webpages and share them with anonymous people on the other side of the pond even if one has no internet connection. I doubt this is true, but please educate me if I am wrong. btw if you are wondering I found this page by clicking on Random book in the left sidebar.

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply