What is Digg?43 Comments
- heinousjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I disagree - the errors are much more specific, which is quite helpful for new users.
Incidentally, you can't stretch the definition of programming anywhere near enough to include XHTML. That's a whole other world.
As such - reported as lame. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2aarvark,
> XHTML is the web standard, like it or not.
Er, no. It is one specification of many. The publication of one specification does not automatically invalidate all others. HTML 4.01 is just as legitimate as XHTML 1.0.
In fact, if you want to talk about *standards*, neither HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 are the best choice. If you want a *standard* then use ISO-HTML, which is based on HTML 4.01, not XHTML 1.0. ISO-HTML is the only web browser markup language that has been standardised by a standards organisation (as opposed to open specifications published by a vendor consortium like the W3C).
> Nobody, even beginners at HTML, should be using anything less than XHTML 1.0 Transitional.
Now this is downright bad advice. The differences between XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 are nothing compared with the differences between Strict and Transitional. Using all the crap in Transitional can cause far more harm than any of the differences between HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0.
> No digg, because this is a horrendous misunderstanding of web standards.
Based on the above, I guarantee that Lachlan understands the issues at hand far better than you do. - BinaryJay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HTML, XML, XHTML... these *aren't "programming languages"*
Sigh... - scorpioX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, *HTML, XML, SGML, are in no way shape or form programming languages. No digg.
- cavicster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Come on, is XHTML really that hard? Peachpit makes a really good Visual Quick-start Guide on XHTML and CSS for people new to even HTML. Better to start beginners writing well formed XHTML and instill a desire in them to write good markup. When I am done writing my XHTML markup, I just run it through a validator then spend a couple minutes cleaning it up. It really does not take very much time.
Sorry. No digg. - BladeMelbourne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article is way off base. No Digg.
XHTML 1.0 is more than 6 years old. It is fine for beginners to use it and they will pick up better habbits than starting with HTML.
Maybe he should update his site to XHTML 1.1? Nah, he's just a beginner. - Spacegoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a noob, I would have to disagree. Learning the more strict XHTML will help me to avoid developing bad habits such as leaving open and improperly nested tags.
- nintendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1XHTML is there for a reason. Encouraging beginner's to stay away from it isn't a good thing. Acceptance of standards means better browsers and consistency across all clients, not just for computers, but mobile phones, portable devices, and more. Simple XHTML is, in a couple of words, simple enough. You only need to be as complex as you want to. Definitely not dugg.
- littmild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What the heck, dude.. xhtml is EXACTLY as easy to learn as html, W3C standards isn't there to make your life just a little harder. And to those who admits they're using HTML 4, what's next? Admitting that you run windows?
- bonzooznob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No Digg.
Yes, XHTML is a tough bullet to bite, but chow down!
That said, HTML is fine, as long as you don't fall for MSHTML...
<FONT SIZE=4>uppercase tags are so 1995<FONT>
<P STYLE=color:red>attributes without quotes<P>
window.createPopup();
document.all; etc. - indiefan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1complete bullsh*t. Learn it right the first time, XML is the only subset of SGML worth using.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No digg for this one. XHTML is better for the beginner because it's way more consistent than HTML. Some of that consistency means being more strict on the rules, but this, I have found, means you don't have to worry about remembering which tags need closing, which tags don't, which attributes need values, so on and so forth. In XHTML, every tag needs to be closed; there's no confusion. Visually checking code for errors becomes much easier for new coders once you don't have to remember all sorts of exceptions and allowances that HTML has.
XHTML is forward compatible; want to add AJAX? DOM tricks that behave consistently? No problem if you used XHTML from the start, but if you learned HTML, and you didn't code strictly and took the liberty of leaving tags unclosed and attributes unvalued, you'd have to recode the whole thing. XHTML is backwards compatible with older browsers; HTML will be limited for future capabilities. The verdict: for the ease of not remembering inconsistencies and for forward compatibility, XHTML is the way to go; no point in learning old-school techniques if you're a newbie; just go for best practices from the start. - maniacdigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ridiculous post. No Digg. Lame.
XHTML is not a programming language, it is a markup syntax. The nonsense about it being bloatfest is also absurd... More than HTML? Lame all the way! - dbxz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no digg! learn a real language... XHTML/HTML/XML are in no way a programming language... they are simple scripting languages that hold information...
- lambda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?????????????????????????????????????????????
no dig. - bonlebon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd say the opposite, start with XHTML beacuse it enforces clean, standard and compliant html, try to parse multiple pages in plain html and you'll have all the fun of the world cursing and figuring out how to extract the data.
- rolandog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Correct remiprev,... and we all know IE sucks. In a link I placed in a digg thread, the daily visitors went from 100 a day to 1400 that day. I was really happy that 66% of the digg visitors (only people coming from the thread) were using specifically Firefox 1.5. There were 73% were using a version from Firefox,... IE was dooown into 10%. So I really felt happy that the digg community knew better that to use IE.
- mepcotterell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1juicewvu is right 100%... XHTML is a markup language not a programming language!
- ReiToei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Programming language"?
Stay out of the valley! - remiprev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The thing is, well-served XHTML isn't correctly processed by IE.
- indiefan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1^ the methods dictate the tools, not vice-versa. Take back control of the web and don't let ie dictate how things should be.
- dephitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What's the opposite of digging and who do you do it?
- sulestis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lame
- windwaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is lame.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lame.
If just for the inclusion of the word 'programming' in a title (The Digg Title, not even the article title!) for an article about a MARKUP language. - lord2800, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kreativemind:
(X)HTML isn't even remotely a programming language. Whoever decided to start calling it one needs to get a clue. (X)HTML is a structured markup language at best -- the same thing that word processors have been doing for god-knows-how-long. As far as scripted vs. core programming languages, you're not even close there. PHP is a scripted programming language that has a linker, but is generally interpreted. Perl is a scripted programming language. ASP, Coldfusion, Java, Python, these are all examples of scripted languages(to some extent... Java is more of an interpreted language but let's not get into that). C/C++ is the only language you mention that is a core language that isn't interpreted. - Slourte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What the hell is that and why do people dig this stupid story?
- retsoced, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1weeetarded. no digg.
- juicewvu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1XHTML is a markup language not a programming language!
- alanmarchman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I teach web design for a living, so here's my 2 cents. Plain ol' HTML is fine for the beginner to start out with. They can make mistakes all day and their browser shifts into quirks mode and does a good job at fixing most errors. Once you have a handle on HTML, then you can move up to XHTML/CSS, and write web pages the right way. Then there's PHP/MySQL, Ajax, Ruby on Rails...***head spins from lack of time to learn new languages***
- kreativemind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm insulted by this Digg! No Digg Here!
(X)HTML, JavaScript, VBScript , XML, UML, and other web languages are not true programming languages. (X)HTML, XML would be considered more of "data-structure programming" and JavaScript is more "scripting language". C(++), Python, PHP, ASP, Coldfusion, Perl, Java are real languages to think of. Just to make clear, once again, as others have commented, XHTML is web standards. If we do not consider these standards, we may face yet another problem where everyone wants to make their own browser with their own standards, their own rules and no schema or guidelines to follow when it comes to web apps, web pages. Should Google/Yahoo/Microsft have written their own code for the web, we would not be here today discussing this topic and wold spend countless conferences developing a standard to follow. Your digg has made me realize that "You Are A Newbie In Programming" and you need to do some homework before posting a diff like this. In fact, if you knew what you were talking about, you could have supoprted your digg with resources that otherwise say HTML 4.0 is better than XHTML 1.0/1.1 !
http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/default.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web
http://xml.coverpages.org/xml.html#overview - quitter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How easy is it to rattle the web monkeys' cages? Pretty easy.
The "they're programming languages" thing isn't even in the article just the digg submission.
The article talks about the practical problems of using XHTML now e.g. how it's handled by browsers and why those issues could be confusing for a beginner. Nothing particularly new but there are some things to think about. If you filtered out the alarmist nature of the piece you could learn something.
Pssst - I heard someone say Firefox is better than HTTP because the W3C has outlawed Ajax in Web3.0 because it was invented ten years ago by Apple who are going to charge you for using CSS which is ten times slower but more efficient than Rails. Discuss! - jlgosse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It ISN'T programming. How did this get to the front page?
- squeakypants, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1stfu you stupid *****
Do you know what you just said? "People who program sloppily shouldn't use xhtml." The stupidest thing is that xhtml is very simple to code correctly, and they have a free code validator that tells you exactly what is wrong with your code if it isn't valid.
please leave digg forever. my pants are no longer squeaky. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> Personally, I prefer XHTML, because it is increasingly becoming the standard. It doesn't invalidate the others, but it is the direction the web is taking
I can't agree that it is "increasingly becoming the standard". XHTML is still a second-class markup language in terms of browser support. Third-party vendors like Google still supply code that simply doesn't work with XHTML. Browsers that support XHTML still support HTML better. Developer expertise is still rooted in HTML development practices, even if they *claim* they are using XHTML.
Even if XHTML is the "direction things are going", that doesn't change the fact that *today*, XHTML causes more problems for beginners than HTML. Hell, *experienced* web developers make all kinds of mistakes and think they are using XHTML correctly - how are beginners supposed to cope?
> I only recommend transitional for beginners. Being able to use deprecated tags AT FIRST makes it a lot easier to develop the skills one needs.
No way. Why learn bad habits when you are only going to have to unlearn them? Strict has 10% less element types to learn. Strict has about 50% less attributes to learn. - remiprev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The author's point is good:
"Beginners should not start learning how to code web pages with XHTML first, because it's not *correctly* supported by every browser"
I fully agree with him. People who starts learning XHTML _before_ HTML are not doing the right thing, IMHO. They should learn what I should call, "the basics", and then, after they've fully understood that are the pros and the cons of switching to XHTML, then they should do it. - windwaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah guys, let's promote disregarding W3C standards!
- Mediaright, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I love XHTML. Frankly XHTML is close enough to HTML, that at least for now, it's OK for beginners. I say that as a student myself (an advanced one). Now later, as it begins to get bogged down by even more CSS and other XML baggage, there will be better options. Though IE isn't as good with it as it should be, you should be using Firefox anyway. Now, as a plus, it teaches syntax and gerneral codeing conventions and good practices that all programs rrequire. Long live XHTML and W3C.
- montek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The title of the article is flawed in suggesting that *HTML is a programming language. Still, this is truly fantastic information for web developers (so ++dugg).
- lordTalus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0web developers are puppies...pp=ss.
- geminitojanus, on 11/04/2007, -3/+0Dugg.
I'm glad someone's trying to stop the XML bloatbeast from taking over all transfer formats. Long Live HTML 4!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is