digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Levels of HTML knowledge

456bereastreet.com — 6 levels of HTML knowledge among people, spanning from next to nothing to those who write the actual HTML specifications. Quite a funny read and not to be taken to seriously.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • charbarred, on 10/12/2007, -19/+39Interesting. So the higher your level is, the less productive you are.
    • Metabolife, on 10/12/2007, -2/+115No, the less myspace pages you have.
    • monkeyninja, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8Is that not the case in most industries?
    • knifeattack, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1Too many levels.
    • phelonius, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4i think there are just enough and not to many levels

      i consider myself somewhere around level 4, but more towards 3 than 5
      so i guess i gotta go'n learn ^_^
    • chesterjosiah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Really creative, and just plain fun to read. Digg.
    • tybris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@veritech
      Thanks for that, looks interesting to say the least.
      You're never too old to try though. Come one... write a nice little yellow/red page with a table of animated gifs :). Throw in frames while you're at it.

      Aaah :'-), I miss the good old days of before the .com hype. It was like the hippie era of web-design.

      edit... now how did I end up replying to the wrong thread...ah, I see, I scrolled up and hit the first reply button I saw. Bummer.
    • wdsux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2chesterjosiah: indeed. I liked it too.

      Now if the comments about it were good too... Too bad 99% of them are "I'm at level 5" or whatever... Nobody cares - really.
    • armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have a size 12.

      Wait, this is different contest?
  • burke, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4So I'm a 4 moving to a 5. Awesome. ;) This is great. Dugg.
  • Sibertank, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Hahahaha, Im stuck between level 5 and 6. Good article, digg
  • MattLat, on 10/12/2007, -57/+5You guys are still using html? You know html is dead, right? It hasn't been updated since 1999.

    we're moving on, using XHTML as a stepping stone to full blown XML. Having said that, I'm inbetween 5 and 6.
    • r2d7, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17You are so cool. I wish I could be cool and use XML, especially for the 99% of situations that don't require that slow-assed *****.
    • MattLat, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5"Slow-assed *****"

      And that's one of the reasons why we're not there yet.
    • r2d7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12If you're waiting for XML to get fast you might want to get comfie.
    • codahale, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"You are so cool. I wish I could be cool and use XML, especially for the 99% of situations that don't require that slow-assed *****."

      Right, because a historical branch of SGML is *so* much faster than XML. *shakes head*
    • ripter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Chill guys, hes obviously a 6 and doesn't code anymore, let him worry about the future of XML and we'll stick to making websites.
    • cayamara, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Just remember that XML is to XHTML as SGML to HTML. So XML is the language that XHTML was described in.
      So why should XML replace XHTML when it's already used to describe XHTML? When you mark stuff up, you need to have a common base on what the tags mean. This common base will always be either HTML (described through SGML) or XHTML (described through XML).
    • justinvt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9How gay is it to argue about something like this, or to brag about it?
    • web.phreak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Not gay... just impressively geeky! ;]

      Gay would be if it was all in l33t speak...
    • Ratty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3XHTML is XML, I don't think you really understand what XML is and what it's for.
    • riczho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sigh.. IE doesn't even support XHTML, and HTML-compatible XHTML is a myth.
      Since XHTML 1.0 is essentially a tag for tag match for HTML, using XHTML is unpractical until it is more widely supported.
      Some further reading: http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
    • cayamara, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Ratty: NO! read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML

      "Whereas HTML is an application of SGML, a very flexible markup language, XHTML is an application of XML, a more restrictive subset of SGML."
    • tybris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"we're moving on, using XHTML as a stepping stone to full blown XML. Having said that, I'm inbetween 5 and 6. "...years old?
  • bleaknik, on 10/12/2007, -16/+8So...
    Would Users be rated with tags?
    Am I <h5>?
    • loqqq, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33Don't know. I'd have to see your schema.
    • Uruviel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17No. the h elements are for headers. Like titles 'n stuff. If you want to write yourself down in a markup language go with XML ... something like:
      [me]
      [html-level]5[/html-level]
      [/me]
      or alternativly
      [me html-level="5" /]
      ... don't get me started on the atributues vs. elements debate
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19keep your schema in your pants. ;-)
  • dandyhighwayman, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3I am such a three! Just look at my site if you don't believe me...
  • loqqq, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38This is the geek version of a Cosmo quiz. My best friend's girlfriend is such a level 4!!!!
  • Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10So, the guy that my boss touts to clients as our "Web Professional" falls squarely between Level 2 and 3, I guess that's why I wince every time he says "Web Professional".
  • thisistrinh, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5"Age-tee-em-what?"...that was good.. let me be the first to say I'm lower than a 4... go level 1.
  • norbiu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Level 4 since January.
  • r2d7, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3I'm a level 5 except for:
    "Level 5 people tend to get into endless discussions about tiny markup details. They can waste hours thinking about class names or reorganising their HTML and CSS files to make their code look pretty."

    I don't give a 2nd thought to my classnames, and I'm a "write once" kind of guy. Anyone who wants to "discuss" markup with me can blow me.
  • tresk, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1I'm level 5, I'm fine right where i am.
  • MagicBobert, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4I fit pretty well into the 5 category.

    But I love this quote from level 1: "HTML? It’s those tags you use to make text bold or italic." Ha, ha, ha, sounds like so many people I know...
  • a1programmer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10There should be a level 7. What about people who write HTML parsers and renderers, like web browsers. :D
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They are mostly level five or below. Just because you write software to read HTML, it doesn't mean you understand it any more than somebody who writes HTML or somebody involved in writing specs. It's just approaching the same markup language from the opposite direction.
    • hexalite, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Sure, but the article wouldn't be as attractive if the number of levels landed on an odd number.
    • wmarcello, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There's also a level missing somewhere around the 0-1-2 level. My dad is a beginner who writes code for his personal website in notepad in simple HTML. He doesn't know about spacer gifs or any of that fancy stuff, just the basic tags. He would no doubt he would get lost in a WYSIWYG editor.
    • Shinkaze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Level 7 is where you come full circle back to level 0 and realize that the only thing that matters is that the user has a consistent quality experience and really doesn't care how a site is built under them so long as they can view it in their preferred format/device and have a consistent understandable look and feel.
    • armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I had to write an HTML parser/formatter at work, but I wouldn't consider myself to be a level 7, if there was one. HTML's pretty simple. Open and close tags. If you're a decent programmer, you could probably write one at level 4. Any lower, and you probably don't know different ways you can close tags, or doctypes, etc.
  • TedTschopp, on 10/12/2007, -23/+1Level 6.... Interesting....
    Want proof? Ok.... How about serverless web applications, applications that run on the network, instead of using the network as a client server protocol. That should do without giving too much away...
    • 2L84ME, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Ooo, get you!
    • artanis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Serverless? Do the ethernet cables / radio waves serve up your pages??
    • fquednau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, yeah, self-aware semantic markup that references showlets, which everyone knows are pseudo-presentational lifelets which in turn are distilled from popular web 2.0 sites, i.e. are based on the total presentational configuration space and can actually decompress right into your brain
    • Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"serverless web applications...that run on the network"
      ..You're writing apps on your Cisco? If they are not running on a server, how exactly are they web applications? That's just an application.

      "instead of using the network as a client server protocol."
      How do you use a network as a protocol? Could you explain which OSI layer that would be? Netwo-Trans perhaps?

      "That should do without giving too much away... "
      To late, you already gave away the fact that you're a tool.
    • dbpigeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is that why your webpage has 10 errors when you check it at the W3C? But seriously everybody, he was obviously joking about it. Anybody who's source code looks as clean as his did was definitely joking and I'm positive he had a clue what he was talking about.
      (his site is in his profile for anybody wondering)
    • tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well.. uh... I'm a level 7! Want proof? My web applications run on flux capacitors and the information is transfered in jigawatts magicaly through the air! Oh no... now you all know too much >_>

      (I'm around a pi level...)
  • Uruviel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Level 5 going on 6 ... great.
    However making my own 'semantic' languages, does not make it more semantic at all ... adding extra XML tags to XHTML only makes it worst. Since not a single browser, nor search engine, will understand the semantics of my custom elements.
    And they bluntly forgot to mention HTML5 ... who's specs are kinda cool but it's still somewhat of a mess
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're absolutely right. Replacing XHTML with home-grown XML is usually a step backwards. I don't know why this myth sprung up that XML was somehow semantic itself - it doesn't go anywhere near semantics, XML merely defines syntax.

      It's languages built *on top of* XML that define semantics, and if you are making up your own element types as you go, those semantics aren't going to be understood by anybody but you. That's why you use a document type with an open specification, like XHTML or DocBook.
    • Daychilde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah, XML is definitely not Semitic. I only know one Jew who can write XML.

      /wait, what? ;-)
  • AdverseEntropy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19I think I'm hovering right between level 4 and level 5. This is my (non-completed) site: http://oikno.com . I think I'm doing okay, considering it's all by hand and I'm fifteen.
    • chad78, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I know people will mod him down for comment spam, but on this particular digg, it may be okay to post links to your site (IE, it's relevant to the discussion). This kid's site is pretty good, especially if he did hand code it himself at 15.

      BTW, I'm not going to post to my site, even though I defended the right to.)
    • AdverseEntropy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Eesh, yeah. Thank you for the kind words, and I didn't even think that I'd get buried for linking to my site. I was just meaning to give an indication of my level.
    • modsuperstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Your site looks good, though your title a orange slice graphic don't mesh properly with the background.
    • AdverseEntropy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Huh. They mesh fine for me. I checked the background colors, they are the same as the background in my CSS. Is anyone else seeing this?
    • tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Heh.. I'm 15 too... but my site looks like crap compared to yours (I'm more of a server side scripting person than an html person... and my site desperately needs a makeover). Very nice job! ^_^
  • sorenb, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1/whatever
  • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0I'm a level five but still do so many of the things in level four... I was a notorious div tag user.
  • jmccorm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Stuck at level three. STUPID CSS!
    • dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Me too.. I, erm.. disagree with "everything must be CSS".. There is a place for it, but I think people are using it for the wrong reasons, and if it detracts from the overall look of the site, it seems idiotic to use..
      One thing, about using CSS for "accessibility".. Have you ever tried reading a site (Digg, say) without CSS? it's damn near impossible.. And using it to be able to write your own global-default CSS sheet, say if your eye sight isn't great, seems like it'd be damn near impossible due to the complete lack of standard for naming div tags (You could name the main content navibar, the navigation bannans, the titles footer, etc etc..)

      I (at a different angle) agree with the bit about people using "XHTML and CSS just because it's a higher-version-number so must be good".. Remember, just because it's old, doesn't mean it's suddenly useless and must be printed out and ritualistically burned like a lot of people seem to have done with good old tables..
      - Ben
    • MatthewWilkes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg isn't perfect without CSS, but it truly is usable.
    • nmixer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1He he, no worries there's lots of sites out there to give you a helping hand to get to level 5 or even move past css html, and start using php or what ever.

      here's a good help site link... for html,css, and lots of other Coding languages.

      http://www.w3schools.com/

      all the coding links are on the left hand of the page, :) have fun getting better!.
      (practice making pages all the time, it helps trust me)


      i rate my self 5,6 but i know some php and what not so ya... :P
      still experimenting though!.
    • dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well there's a good example of a site that does work well with CSS, but there are others where the extra effort it takes to use CSS is wasted.. Not saying every site shouldn't use CSS, just don't use it because it exists
      - Ben
  • bmson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I'm 5, may be if that would be allowed 5.5
  • arakel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Actually there are seven levels, 0-6 equates to seven levels correct?
    • boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Ordinarily, yes, but this is a list of HTML knowledge levels, and level 0 has no knowledge. Whether you can count that would be a good philosophical debate.
  • WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Level 3. I can remember learning html from Allaire's homesite, before frontpage was around. I havent done any webwork in like 8 years though :)
  • TheComputerMutt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I'd think myself 5.01. All my code is semantics over presentation, except for stupid hacks needed to make them work with IE. >.< The .1 comes from the few times that I've failed to exploit the "X" in "XHTML".
    • tybris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Actually, if you have enough XHTML/CSS knowledge...you won't need hacks. (ok, maybe for pngs, that's unavoidable)
    • samboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"won't need hacks". Sounds like you haven't designed a visually appealing web page that looks good in both MSIE6 and in a browser that passes the ACID test.
    • Metasquares, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@samboy: It is possible, and indeed easy, to do so, but you usually have to sacrifice semantics, which is what I go on about in great length in my other post. To summarize, it's a failure of the language itself (though the browsers are also at fault for not implementing it well).
    • tybris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Metasquares
      Indeed that is the sacrifice, but although I haven't used tables in a long time I often wonder whether XHTML is for semantics or if it is truly just about mark-up. If it is about semantics it's doing a pretty bad job. The 'semantical' tags deal with things useless to 99% of the public (samp, var, kbd, code) and the rest is really about visual presentation. Worst of them all are tags like del, I'd be amazed if anyone would actually use that. If you care about semantics, put what you want to say in rdf and use XSLT processing instructions to convert it to a (XHTML) presentation. Then your document semantics are clear and accesible while still viewable by browser. An advantage you gain is that XSLT is able to do indisputable browser detection and change your output and CSS link on-the-fly eliminating every possible need for hacks. And that my friends is how you should think at this 'level 6'.

      P.S. I am not saying I'm actually creating all (or any) of my websites like this (ok, 2 to be exact)
  • SuperGhost, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6I'm level 9 - I write ZML (Zuper-Dooper Markup Language). It's a language me and my invisible friends created so that the aliens can't decipher what we're typing.
  • charmedguy18, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I'm caught in the middle of two and three.
  • thewhitefedora, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Level 3.5-4.5 I use css and html mostly, but I need to know more. I'm really aiming for level 5, but 6 would be nice. I definitely like the inner workings of code, and scoff at flash.
  • sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4This site doesn't mention the ulta-secret level 7. Upon attaining this level you will be contacted by a secret society of uber-web-geeks that control the universe.
  • astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2I'm an experienced programmer. I guess that puts me at level 8 or 9 on the old HTML scale.
    • tybris, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Real computer scientists are at HTML level 2/3.
  • iandotcom, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4For your average joe, being on a low level can be comfortable, and still be able to get through digital life.
  • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Doesn't Oreilly and Associates have the trademark on the levels HTML 2.0 - 6.0?
  • aplusplus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This is pretty dead-on. I'm at level 5, I'd say. When I first started trying to learn HTML, though, all I did was copy source codes. Then made slight changes for tags that I knew (basically background, img, b, i). Ah, those were the days...
  • boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I'm a solid level 5. Sweet.
  • eleven, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I'm a level 5 at work at a level 3 at home. I also hate IE with a passion - it must add a soild week of tweeking to any site I make.
    • iamtheratio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1It shouldn't take that long to tweak your CSS to work in IE. Especially if you've made enough sites. Copy and paste my friend, copy and paste.
  • jo42, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6He forgot Level 7:

    Those who think HTML, CSS and Javascript is a huge pile of crap that needs to be thrown out and redone from scratch instead of building a stick house on top of a straw house on top of quicksand.

    - me
    • Uruviel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And what _do_ you propose exactly?
      The current setup has it quirks, yes. But the whole reason the internet became so popular was because the languages were so easy to learn. If HTML/CSS/JS were like LISP or Fortran Web 1.0 never happend.
      Same goes for server-side If we still had to use C/CGI code instead of the current PHP there would've been far fewer 'dynamic sites' and the whole Web2.0 prolly never happened.

      And mind you the whole development of those languages was kinda hasty. Within a matter of years the firsts specs rolled out. We are currently in calm water so we can indeed rethink some of the mistakes we made back in the '90 regarding markup and such. So We'll see in the near future if you're right I guess.
    • beforeIforget, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It be nice if a future browser supported a different interpreted language other than JavaScript. Maybe something like Ruby to manipulate the DOM, event model, and make backend calls (ajax like) as simple statements .... it would live along side the new xhtml specs and css3.... and be supported by all browsers....

      I know .. dreaming pretty big here.
  • SilentSpyder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43.25 baby. I learned HTML in high school but now hear there's something called CS S..?
  • dayquil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is a rather reasonably written article, considering the "Quite a funny read and not to be taken to seriously" that the poster tagged it with. It has some humor to it, sure, but I don't think there's anything that requires such a disclaimer. Relax, dude.
  • jals, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Hah!

    "They can waste hours thinking about class names or reorganising their HTML and CSS files to make their code look pretty."

    This is so me. I do it with PHP variable names too, trying to think up ones that sound "better" than ones I already have. I don't even know why I do it, it wastes so much time.
  • gamesector, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'd stick myself at level 5, I shall never be associated with the people that use inline styles in level 4! Never I say!
  • av4rice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Not to be taken to seriously? Where should it be taken to then?
    • gamesector, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5It was probably a typo. You're not funny.
    • 2L84ME, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Don't take his nitpicking to seriously.

      *cringe*
  • Alegis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14. Dang I should really do something about it.
  • persaltier, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I'm a 5'er, but I've been all of them at one point in time, and loved them all dearly. The smart ones don't forget where they started out.
  • empeethree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1if i can make it to the next level, i get to use lightning bolt!
  • lhenkel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I can top that. How about a data-less communication protocol. We could call it...politics.

    Can I be level 7?
  • rc_collins, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I stopped reading and realized that the author is a complete moron when i saw "Yeah yeah, I’ve heard about those fancy new ul and h1 tags, but I’m doing just fine with my trusty old table, img, and br tags"

    ul and h1 are older then table and img.

    Learn your history if you are trying to make a point about old school HTML authors.

    --dan
    Yes, I wrote webpages for Netscape .90 so shove it!
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think you missed the point. He was characterising a low level of knowledge, not actually saying he thinks that himself.
    • diggmatter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Maybe you should read the article again. It doesn't matter if the actual tags themselves have been around longer, people weren't using them correctly. He's referring to the new (proper) way of using them to semantically markup and structure your code, rather than relying in tables, spacer .GIFs and line breaks.
    • rc_collins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I take his quotes as serious quotes that would be made by people of that level, there is no indication of sarcasm. Honestly, I think the author has a level 3 knowledge and shows it trying to be smart himself.

      --dan
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> I take his quotes as serious quotes that would be made by people of that level

      Yes, but that doesn't mean he holds that position himself. Do you think he doesn't know what HTML is, because he included a quote saying "Age-tee-em-what?"
  • Porsche944, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I found this article to be pretty poor. On a scale from 0 - 6 with 0 being no experience at all to 6 being writing standards I would think based on the demographics from that one survey that was on Digg we found out most of the digg users are 20 - 30 years old making around 20,000 - 30,000 a year. I think most would agree this is fresh out of college. That would put you more at a 2 - 3. I doubt there are but a handful of 5's here at all and nobody near a 6.
    • diggmatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So the article is poor simply because it can't be applied to the average (in your opinion) Digg user?
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How did you get from "most Digg readers aren't high level" to "this article is pretty poor"? The article doesn't say that Digg readers are high level, that's Digg readers claiming they are high level.

      I don't really think that age or the amount of money somebody earns correlates to HTML knowledge very strongly at all. In fact, from what I see, the people who have just begun web development in the past few years often have a head-start on the average web developer who has been doing it a little longer, because they tend to skip the "everything is a table" step. And conversely, I've met a lot of people who know nothing about HTML who make a lot of money.
    • rc_collins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2making around 20,000 - 30,000 a year???

      God, I hope people are making more then that!

      --dan
  • Hypersapien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The quote from level 4: "How can I create a data table with divs and spans instead of tables?"

    Is this supposed to be a joke or not? I can't tell. You don't use divs and spans for that. Things like that are what tables are SUPPOSED to be used for.
    • Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually, the specs do allow for simulating a table with divs. However, this is acheived via the CSS 'display' property, and the those values aren't well supported yet: table, table-row, table-cell.

      There is another trick using massive padding-bottom and similar negative margin-bottom, but it doesn't work in Opera.
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Sigh. I know that's what tables are meant to be used for. You know that. The article author knows that. The point is that a lot of developers *don't* know that. The article author is labelling this level of expertise as "level 4". When you avoid tables altogether, even when they are appropriate, you are at level 4.

      Are people just completely missing the point of this article or what? Yes, there are obvious errors. These errors are how you differentiate between the different levels of knowledge. That's the whole *point* of the article.
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5> Actually, the specs do allow for simulating a table with divs.

      Well yes, but if you have a *data table*, then you should be using the <table> element type, not the <div> element type. Using CSS to emulate a table when it is actually tabular data is wrong. That's exactly what <table> is for.
    • rc_collins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I am with you, I take his quotes as serious quotes that would be made by people of that level, there is no indication of sarcasm. Honestly, I think the author has a level 3 knowledge and shows it trying to be smart himself.

      --dan
    • modsuperstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can say back when I started using CSS full on I fell for that one. Given the prevailing idea that all the design resources spout about tables are the devil and should be replaced by divs, the concept that tables do have their place is easily missed.
    • Corvillus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This reminds me of a funny Daily WTF, a perfect example of what tables SHOULD be used for. http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/74148.aspx
    • Hypersapien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bogtha

      That's what I was thinking, I just wasn't sure.
  • a1programmer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1

  • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9they forgot 'level myspace'

    where the only tags you know are blink and center
  • Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The author makes light of his topic, but he's right.

    Wow, I guess I went from 0-4 in about two years (96-98). Took me until about 2001 to get to 5, and now I really have a desire to participate in writing the specs, not necessarily write my own.

    XHTML2 is the way to go.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.