what to learn html 4.01 or html 5

[Jason__C]

Because there is something called 'competition' where each rendering engine continually improves over time to outdo their competitors, driving innovation and acceptance of new standards. If they all used the same one, the web would just stagnate and not move forwards. Terrible idea I'm afraid!

Meh. Continue to take time out of your day and complain about the browsers problems, while my idea would have ended it. Oh, and I guess you didn't read all of my comment. I said, browsers would have add-on's that would make them UNIQUE and separate them from the OTHER browsers! That alone would create competition, would it not? Exact same Core, and different unique features. There, that would end this argument, and the million others related to this, forever.

So, I stand by my comment.

[Stormrider]

I don't complain about browser's problems?

It might create competition in the 'addons' area, but not in terms of supporting newer HTML standards and innovating in that area. Competition is a GOOD thing in the world!

[Jason__C]

I don't complain about browser's problems?

It might create competition in the 'addons' area, but not in terms of supporting newer HTML standards and innovating in that area. Competition is a GOOD thing in the world!

What I mean about complaining of browser problems is, telling noob's either to learn HTML 4.1 vs. XHTML vs. HTML 5 makes it very hard for people to enter this field. Being, the browser created this problem. When discussing which technology the person should purser, and differ about it, again, is the mess that is browsers....

Anyways, opinions are great, and so is competition

[Stormrider]

HTML versions have nothing to do with cross browser compatibility issues, so I don't see how this thread would be relevant when discussing a solution to cross browser compatibility.

[Jason__C]

HTML versions have nothing to do with cross browser compatibility issues, so I don't see how this thread would be relevant when discussing a solution to cross browser compatibility.

Really? When did IE8 support XHTML fully? Not to mention of the mess CSS has become.

W3C should be dissolved, and taken over by the browser manufactures. This crap would be over in 5-10 years, and make development so much easier.

[xhtmlcoder]

I think Tommy does (When his site isn't broken)

Yes, he did serve 'application/xhtml+xml' just like myself; to browsers that can accept it, and to those that cannot they get given 'text/html'.

[Stormrider]

Really? When did IE8 support XHTML fully? Not to mention of the mess CSS has become.

W3C should be dissolved, and taken over by the browser manufactures. This crap would be over in 5-10 years, and make development so much easier.

The browser manufacturers are already involved in the W3C, so that's obviously not true!

The standards are fine, it's the browsers taking their time supporting them, and the users taking even longer to upgrade that's the problem.

IE8 doesn't support XHTML, but what does that have to do with learning it? It might influence how you serve it, whether you use it etc, but not about which version of HTML you should learn first. The answer to that would probably be the same independent of what browsers could do at the moment.

[Jason__C]

The browser manufacturers are already involved in the W3C, so that's obviously not true!

The standards are fine, it's the browsers taking their time supporting them, and the users taking even longer to upgrade that's the problem.

IE8 doesn't support XHTML, but what does that have to do with learning it? It might influence how you serve it, whether you use it etc, but not about which version of HTML you should learn first. The answer to that would probably be the same independent of what browsers could do at the moment.

Look, we are never going to agree, so I'm just going to stop. You won! Yay!

I will close it by saying: W3C should go of the way of Netscape, and become non-existent. To replace it, the Corps should control the user end of the web. Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, and Google should make a browser-path that all have to adapt to. Put it in writing. Have the browser manufactures meet 4 times a year go give each other a progress update.

That will structure a chaos internet. Just turn the web into a business format.

Done.

[noonnope]

The only practical difference that most people see between XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 is the self-closing tags.

[...]

It's helpful to keep your audience in mind when responding. A beginner is unlikely to be using SVG or anything like that, because it's not fully supported by all commonly used browsers yet.

I've heard that the only practical difference most people see between Mars and Earth is the athmosphere.

My HTML contains tags / attributes and text, that's it.
[...]
Browsers will always understand HTML.
Syntax doesn't matter, as long as it's consistent with a standard.
Doctypes don't matter.

This thread is becoming somewhat of a joke. Saying html is always html for browsers is the dumbest thing one can provide as teaching advice.

What tags does your html have? What attributes? Are you sure they are understood by browsers? There are html standards old as granny browsers don't support well even today.

Browsers do treat differently XHTML 1.0 from HTML 4.01 and from HTML5. Hell, many don't even handle XHTML well, not to mention many don't have HTML5 implemented yet.

And don't come and tell me now XHTML 1.0 and HTML5 are not html! DTD does matter. You're stumbling about in technical implementations and mix them up with specifications.

I don't relate to your arguments at all. I'm more interested in this stuff than most - I still see the differences as negligible. Learning HTML5 hasn't meant any "unlearning" for me.

Yeah, I've heard about this speed course in HTML5. You change your doctype to

<!DOCTYPE HTML>

et violá, another HTML5 savvy out the assembly line.

There is so much semnatic mixup in HTML5, as oppossed to HTML 4.01, and we are arguing years over properly learning HTML 4.01. Guess how long HTML5 would take to PROPERLY learn? Certainly not a week-end, since now there are two specs for HTML5, and these two don't say the same thing always.


But I see what you and samanime are saying: any beginner should just start throwing tags in a text file, and the damn browsers better do something good about it, or else they'll complain and ***** and come to SPF forums for somebody to do the job for them learning nothing in the process.

[noonnope]

IE8 doesn't support XHTML [...]

I would kindly disagree.

When learning them, self closing the tags is the most important thing to remember.

I would instruct newbies to take this as a joke.

[Stormrider]

I would kindly disagree.

You can disagree all you like, but it's a fact! It doesn't

IE 9 (released today) is the first version of IE to support XHTML.

[noonnope]

Nah-ah.

1. HTML compatible XHTML 1.0 may be sent with the “text/html”.

2. You can serve XHTML documents as “application/xhtml+xml” to IE8- also, you just need to know how.

3. Namespaces, a XHTML (and XML) feature, can be use since IE5.

Three points of hard facts. Got anything else than your word?

[Stormrider]

Nah-ah.

1. HTML compatible XHTML 1.0 may be sent with the “text/html”.

Not 'legally'.

2. You can serve XHTML documents as “application/xhtml+xml” to IE8- also, you just need to know how.

With a plugin yes, but not practically.

3. Namespaces, a XHTML (and XML) feature, can be used since IE5.

Supporting one part of a language doesn't mean you support the language.

Three points of hard facts. Got anything else than your word?

Three responses.

[noonnope]

Three (shady) responses, that confirm, nonetheless, what I'm saying: IE does support XHTML - interpreting and rendering.

[Stormrider]

Three (shady) responses, that confirm, nonetheless, what I'm saying: IE does support XHTML - interpreting and rendering.

It supports XHTML served as text/html, which basically makes it invalid HTML, not XHTML.

[noonnope]

Something you said makes me believe HTML and XHTML aren't that much different for this to be a problem?!

When learning them, self closing the tags is the most important thing to remember. When using them, you must remember the correct mime type (a simple thing) and bear in mind a few facts about error checking / validation in XML (not so much a hard thing to learn, but just something to be aware of).

As far as I can tell, you're saying the self closing tags may be the biggest problem for IE.

Not that I agree with that. In fact, I was stating the opposite since the beginning: HTML and XHTML are a lot different. You seem to think otherwise. So why should it be so much of a concern if XHTML is served as text/html? Just because of the self closing tags and a simple thing and a few facts about error checking?

[xhtmlcoder]

Off Topic:

XHTML Transitional MAY be sent as text/html like Μitică said - Appendix C. But to be honest we are veering way off topic now and the original question has been solved. The main noticeable difference being the browser uses an XML Processor when served as real XHTML under (application/xhtml+xml) thus MUST be 'well-formed'; else draconian error handling occurs and you get a FATAL error report.

[Stormrider]

I thought if you used the XML header (which you should for any application of XML), you couldn't send it as text/html

[Stormrider]

As far as I can tell, you're saying the self closing tags may be the biggest problem for IE.

I didn't say anything about self closing tags and IE!

I simply said that for the point of view of someone learning the language, and the syntax, self closing tags is the biggest difference. For other people, other differences are more of a concern. It's all about context.

[ULTiMATE]

I will close it by saying: W3C should go of the way of Netscape, and become non-existent. To replace it, the Corps should control the user end of the web. Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, and Google should make a browser-path that all have to adapt to. Put it in writing. Have the browser manufactures meet 4 times a year go give each other a progress update.

Please re-read over Stormrider's previous comments to you and realise that what you're suggesting would be a terrible idea.

[samanime]

I have to disagree with you ULTiMATE about using XHTML first. I've seen people teach XHTML first and it generally causes more problems then it helps. There was never anything vital that was a problem, but it seemed to actually create lazier programmers rather than stricter programmers (like you'd expect). In my experience teaching web design, it seems that teaching (and learning) HTML 4.01 Strict and ensuring it validates creates more thorough developers. Really though, as long as you're being strict about your coding, they're both roughly the same.

But I see what you and samanime are saying: any beginner should just start throwing tags in a text file, and the damn browsers better do something good about it, or else they'll complain and ***** and come to SPF forums for somebody to do the job for them learning nothing in the process.

Did you start running marathons before you could crawl? Did you start doing Calculus before you could count to 3? Things need to be taken one step at a time. You start by learning the required elements. Then you add a few more. Then you add a few more, etc.

[noonnope]

No, but I wasn't advised to first test breathing under water only to be able to discover pleasently surprised the ease of breathing the air on the surface.

This is tech knowledge. And a scripted language. This means everybody can have a shot at it, but not everybody will do a decent job. Unless they are given good advice.

I would almost say you could skip XHTML 1.0 completely... almost.

The difference between XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 is almost non-existent. The only real difference (with the exception of a few elements like xmlns attribute) is that all elements in XHTML 1.0 must be closed, including single tag elements (meaning <br> becomes <br /> so it's self-closing). If all of your HTML 4.01 is validating, it'd take you all of 10 minutes to learn XHTML 1.0.

Also, since HTML5 is largely HTML 4.01 with a few extra things (and a few deprecated things), learning HTML 4.01 will also give you 90% of HTML5.

So, learn HTML 4.01 first. Once you've mastered that, start learning the new HTML5 elements.

certainly doesn't teach you how to crawl first, it teaches you how to dig your self a hole. Especially since HTML5 WILL use XHTML HEAVILY.

And it forces newbies to belive XHTML is for nothing. Never touch it. That's not good advice. And that "single tag" elements must be closed. That means all elements having optional closing tag must be closed the way you've showed above: <p />? At least use the proper tech language: empty (or better yet, void) elements. And you do know XHTML syntax for self-closing tags is <br/>, right? At least explain the student why you give him advice against XHTML syntax. Confusion is not the best mood for learning.

A bad advice is not an act of benevolence. It can be counted quite the contrary.

Tell-tales like "I've seen...", "In my experience..." tell us more about the teachers and less about the students. Tell-tales can't replace good tech knowledge. If the student doesn't understand, the student asks again. The teacher explains better. Until student gets it. Simple as that.

[Michael Morris]

W3C is an utter failure. If we have to discuss which one to use and why it is different is what makes development for the many browsers so damn confusing.

Just thought of it. Why doesn't ALL of the browser manufactures get TOGETHER and bang out a solid core, where all browser are the EXACT same, then each browser manufacture can have "add-ons" that would make their browser unique and pander to their followers? Gezz, what a concept.

They've already done this. It's called the W3C.

(The humor in contrasting your first statement with your second is too good to pass up).

[samanime]

If you give the student too much at once, they get frustrated and give up.

Knowing that the only difference they MUST know to write valid XHTML (ignoring the text/html thing) is that they must close self-closing tags when they are a beginner is far more useful than explaining to them the difference between text/html and application/xhtml+xml... especially considering they are likely to start out locally (without Apache/IIS) or on a shared host, both of which they have no real control over the MIME type that is served for each page.

Likewise they're better off learning about PNG, JPG, and GIF before learning about SVGs, because the former are supported much better, even though SVG is superior in many regards.

When you learn C++ you don't start out from day one using classes and object-oriented programming patterns, even though those are vastly superior to procedural approaches. You start with the main function. Then you do an output to the console. Then you learn about variables. Then you do something with those variables. Then you learn about input. Then you learn about conditionals. Then you learn about loops. Then you learn about functions.... and eventually you work your way, step-by-step, to how professionals do things.

I've taught for many years and done curriculum development for web design courses. You aren't telling me anything I didn't already know. However, there are steps to this and overloading a student at the very beginning will only result in confusion, frustration, and eventually failure and them giving up.

[noonnope]

I wish I could believe you.

Knowing that the only difference they MUST know to write valid XHTML (ignoring the text/html thing)

This makes me scream: "Please STOP! No more FALSE INFO!!!" Valid XHTML means only the closing tag? Which, if it's <br />, it's not even valid XHTML, it should be <br/>? You are so wrong I could ask for my money back!

Feeding wrong information may be your thing when teaching, not mine. Yeah, that's right, I used to be a teacher.

And no, starting off with the correct info, that's what makes a student tick. Challenge him constantly. Playing him for a stupid doesn't work so much, unless your students are preschool. Learning that you thought he was too dumb to understand some pretty basic stuff will only tick him off. He will take it as he should: you didn't have enough info to make it simpler to understand, and chose to feed him false info instead.

And finally, please admit you were giving FALSE and WRONG info, and let's be done with it.

I know I'm done with it. I'm a stubborn man my self, and it shows here on SPF plenty, but I don't enjoy being stubborn just to be right. I defend an idea so that others may go harder against it and give good reasoning and understanding to change my mind where I'm wrong. Hiding ignorance it's not the same with knowledge testing in the process of learning. I'm not hiding my ignorance, I show it so I can learn.