What Next?

[Mason]

I've been working to become competent at making websites. My learning path
has been:

html -css- paintshop pro -javascript -php/mysql

I'm getting somewhat proficient at php/mysql (although I have plenty to
learn - I haven't even started on gd library) and want to think about my
next step.

Any suggestions?
XML and then AJAX?
PERL?
Some sort of vector drawing.paintin g to do logo's etc.?

Any advice appreciated.

[Sanders Kaufman]

Re: What Next?

Mason wrote:

I've been working to become competent at making websites. My learning path
has been:
>
html -css- paintshop pro -javascript -php/mysql
>
I'm getting somewhat proficient at php/mysql (although I have plenty to
learn - I haven't even started on gd library) and want to think about my
next step.
>
Any suggestions?
XML and then AJAX?
PERL?
Some sort of vector drawing.paintin g to do logo's etc.?
>
Any advice appreciated.

Your path is dependent upon your destination.
Where do you want to go?

It looks like you're wanting to become proficient in
the fundamentals - so while PERL, AJAX, Java, etc
are all good things to know - you absolutely *must*
learn about XML.

It's worth pointing out that regular old HTML is
deprecated. It's obsolete. It's tech from an eon
gone by. XHTML is the new standard - more workable
with XML, XSLT, and XForms.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: What Next?

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Mason wrote:
>

>I've been working to become competent at making websites. My learning
>path has been:
>>
>html -css- paintshop pro -javascript -php/mysql
>>
>I'm getting somewhat proficient at php/mysql (although I have plenty
>to learn - I haven't even started on gd library) and want to think
>about my next step.
>>
>Any suggestions?
>XML and then AJAX?
>PERL?
>Some sort of vector drawing.paintin g to do logo's etc.?
>>
>Any advice appreciated.

>
>
Your path is dependent upon your destination.
Where do you want to go?
>
It looks like you're wanting to become proficient in the fundamentals -
so while PERL, AJAX, Java, etc are all good things to know - you
absolutely *must* learn about XML.
>
It's worth pointing out that regular old HTML is deprecated. It's
obsolete. It's tech from an eon gone by. XHTML is the new standard -
more workable with XML, XSLT, and XForms.

Which will be very nice when the browsers learn how to get it right.

Hold it - they haven't even learned how to get plain old HTML right yet!

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Sanders Kaufman]

Re: What Next?

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>It's worth pointing out that regular old HTML is deprecated. It's
>obsolete. It's tech from an eon gone by. XHTML is the new standard -
>more workable with XML, XSLT, and XForms.

>
Which will be very nice when the browsers learn how to get it right.
Hold it - they haven't even learned how to get plain old HTML right yet!

You're right.
There's no sense in learning any technology because
all of them are imperfect.

F******g troll.
-PLONK-

[Michael Fesser]

Re: What Next?

..oO(Sanders Kaufman)

>It's worth pointing out that regular old HTML is
>deprecated. It's obsolete.

No. It's still a perfectly valid technology.
It might even see a version 5.

>It's tech from an eon
>gone by. XHTML is the new standard

IE doesn't support it.

Micha

[Sanders Kaufman]

Re: What Next?

Michael Fesser wrote:

.oO(Sanders Kaufman)
>

>It's worth pointing out that regular old HTML is
>deprecated. It's obsolete.

>
No. It's still a perfectly valid technology.

So is steam power - but the question was "what's next?".

It might even see a version 5.

That's what XHTML v1.0 is.

>It's tech from an eon
>gone by. XHTML is the new standard

>
IE doesn't support it.

ALL web browsers that support HTML3 support XHTML.

[Michael Fesser]

Re: What Next?

..oO(Sanders Kaufman)

>Michael Fesser wrote:
>

>It might even see a version 5.

>
>That's what XHTML v1.0 is.

Reinventing HTML

http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166

>ALL web browsers that support HTML3 support XHTML.

IE only accepts it when you deliver it as text/html, but then it's no
XHTML anymore. It's written in an HTML-compatible syntax, it's delivered
as HTML and parsed as HTML.

If you really want to use XHTML in a proper way then you have to use the
correct content type application/xhtml+xml.

Micha

[Sanders Kaufman]

Re: What Next?

Michael Fesser wrote:

.oO(Sanders Kaufman)

>ALL web browsers that support HTML3 support XHTML.

>
IE only accepts it when you deliver it as text/html, but then it's no

That's because XHTML is text, and it is html.

XHTML anymore. It's written in an HTML-compatible syntax, it's delivered
as HTML and parsed as HTML.

And that's what makes it work.

If you really want to use XHTML in a proper way then you have to use the
correct content type application/xhtml+xml.

That's one way.
But one of the reasons it was developed was to
ensure that the web content can be deliverd in a
greater number of ways, and to a greater number of
clients... including and especially, HTML clients.

[Michael Fesser]

Re: What Next?

..oO(Sanders Kaufman)

>Michael Fesser wrote:
>

>IE only accepts it when you deliver it as text/html, but then it's no

>
>That's because XHTML is text, and it is html.

XHTML can be much more than that, but not as text/html.

>XHTML anymore. It's written in an HTML-compatible syntax, it's delivered
>as HTML and parsed as HTML.

>
>And that's what makes it work.

Then there's no reason to use XHTML currently, simply because it doesn't
provide any benefits over HTML.

OTOH XHTML _does_ have its benefits, but only if it's interpreted as
such and not as HTML. This, as said, requires a modern browser.

>If you really want to use XHTML in a proper way then you have to use the
>correct content type application/xhtml+xml.

>
>That's one way.
>But one of the reasons it was developed was to
>ensure that the web content can be deliverd in a
>greater number of ways, and to a greater number of
>clients... including and especially, HTML clients.

Properly written HTML can do the same.

Micha

[nobody]

Re: What Next?

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:06:02 GMT, Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman. net>
wrote:

>Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>

>>It's worth pointing out that regular old HTML is deprecated. It's
>>obsolete. It's tech from an eon gone by. XHTML is the new standard -
>>more workable with XML, XSLT, and XForms.

>>
>Which will be very nice when the browsers learn how to get it right.
>Hold it - they haven't even learned how to get plain old HTML right yet!

>
>You're right.
>There's no sense in learning any technology because
>all of them are imperfect.
>
>F******g troll.
>-PLONK-

What a stimulating discussion.

-PLONK-

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: What Next?

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>

>Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>
>

>>It's worth pointing out that regular old HTML is deprecated. It's
>>obsolete. It's tech from an eon gone by. XHTML is the new standard
>>- more workable with XML, XSLT, and XForms.

>>
>>
>Which will be very nice when the browsers learn how to get it right.
>Hold it - they haven't even learned how to get plain old HTML right yet!

>
>
You're right.
There's no sense in learning any technology because all of them are
imperfect.
>
F******g troll.
-PLONK-

Can't you take a joke, you jackass?

First of all, I never said there was no sense learning it. Don't put
words in my mouth.

Secondly, I never said that XHTML, etc. all were bad.

All I observed is that browsers still have a lot of trouble with XHTML,
et. al. And this isn't limited to any one browser - all of them have
troubles in one area or another.

But I also indicated that they haven't even gotten HTML right yet. So
according to your statement, there's no sense learning HTML either, is
there?

I stand by my statement. These technologies will be very nice when the
browsers learn to get it right. Until then they are a real PITA to get
to work properly in more than one browser. Sometimes it's hard to get
them to work in even one browser!

OTOH, like it or not, HTML will be around for a long, long time yet.
And maybe *eventually* browsers will get it right.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[lorento]

Re: What Next?

Back to topic. Next step, what I think if you want to become competent
at making websites.

adobe photoshop, flash, asp.net, mssql

--

http://www.mastervb.net

http://www.theaussiemap.com

Mason wrote:

I've been working to become competent at making websites. My learning path
has been:
>
html -css- paintshop pro -javascript -php/mysql
>
I'm getting somewhat proficient at php/mysql (although I have plenty to
learn - I haven't even started on gd library) and want to think about my
next step.
>
Any suggestions?
XML and then AJAX?
PERL?
Some sort of vector drawing.paintin g to do logo's etc.?
>
Any advice appreciated.

[Geoff Berrow]

Re: What Next?

Message-ID: <bm1il2p2b1k775 v5eh4l8doln1qpb icdlp@4ax.comfr om Michael
Fesser contained the following:

>>That's because XHTML is text, and it is html.

>
>XHTML can be much more than that, but not as text/html.
>

>>XHTML anymore. It's written in an HTML-compatible syntax, it's delivered
>>as HTML and parsed as HTML.

>>
>>And that's what makes it work.

>
>Then there's no reason to use XHTML currently, simply because it doesn't
>provide any benefits over HTML.
>
>OTOH XHTML _does_ have its benefits, but only if it's interpreted as
>such and not as HTML. This, as said, requires a modern browser.

It used to be that one of the liberating factors of the web was that
HTML was simple and easy to learn. Therefore it was no barrier to
producing webpages. Contrast that with XHTML (generated by XML and XSLT
stylesheets). Actually I don't know how hard that is, there never being
enough hours in the day for me to find out. But I suspect that this
method is gong to be more useful for web development tools than straight
hand coders (BICBW - enlightenment welcome).

I see absolutely no benefit in marking up to XHTML 1.1 Strict delivered
as text over and above HTML 4.01 Strict. And XHTML 1.1 transitional is
definitely a step backward.

The op should probably take an overview of the technologies involved in
XHTML but a more productive area of study might be in accessibility and
fluid web design.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

[Peter Fox]

Re: What Next?

Following on from Sanders Kaufman's message. . .

>It looks like you're wanting to become proficient in
>the fundamentals - so while PERL, AJAX, Java, etc
>are all good things to know - you absolutely *must*
>learn about XML.

Rubbish

>
>It's worth pointing out that regular old HTML is
>deprecated. It's obsolete. It's tech from an eon
>gone by. XHTML is the new standard - more workable
>with XML, XSLT, and XForms.

Rubbish

Don't get involved with baroque technology that has a large overhead and
very little real benefit to man nor beast - especially in web pages.
Anyone who can understand the <tagscheme of HTML can get the idea of
XML if necessary.


--
PETER FOX Not the same since the porcelain business went down the pan
peterfox@eminen t.demon.co.uk.n ot.this.bit.no. html
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.dem on.co.uk>

[Peter Fox]

Re: What Next?

Following on from Mason's message. . .

>I've been working to become competent at making websites. My learning path
>has been:
>
>html -css- paintshop pro -javascript -php/mysql
>
>I'm getting somewhat proficient at php/mysql (although I have plenty to
>learn - I haven't even started on gd library) and want to think about my
>next step.

Good start. You've been looking at how to use a useful set of tools for
your workshop.

There are possibly a couple more bits of off the shelf technology that
you ought to get a feel for. Apache and setting up a web server. If
you can already do this (it's not hard on a familiar operating system)
then try it on an alternative OS. [1]

There is some important background reading to be done in the field of
security both the general scope and the specifics of dealing with user
input. You should also check out a little bit of the computer science
bit of programming (data structures and OO for example) and the software
engineering bit of programming (development methods and life cycle for
example). Almost anyone can write PHP code but very very few can
produce systems that are robust, resilient and reliable. It can take
years to be really good.

Then you will need to develop your working environment. This is a
matter of trying out editors[2], making useful tools, trying out
utilities, evolving reusable code and structuring your workspace
efficiently.

Of course you'll need the communication skills to find out what users
really want and convert that into something that 'works' on the screen.
This takes time and experimentation .

Finally you might want to investigate in a spirit of 'I wonder if these
can do anything for me' some frameworks.

o Good luck.
o When you have a fully functioning software workshop then hyped things
like for example AJAX will be a lot easier to evaluate for 'what can
they do for me'.
o Get in plenty of 'miles'. There is no substitute for screen-hours
spent sweating towards working systems.
o If you contact me direct (watch spam trap) I will send you a tutorial
resource which I think will be right up your street.

[1] Also remember that there are multiple PHP programming paradigms. As
snippets inside HTML and as programs that emit HTML.

[2] Have a look at, and keep your eye on, Eclipse. (It doesn't work for
me but YMMV.)


--
PETER FOX Not the same since the porcelain business went down the pan
peterfox@eminen t.demon.co.uk.n ot.this.bit.no. html
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.dem on.co.uk>