|
Post by XFox Prower on Aug 12, 2003 19:52:34 GMT -5
In my examples, I am using Red for the tag name, Yellow for the attribute, and Orange for the values. It's a pain to keep changing colors but I hope it helps you in understanding how a tag is broken up.
|
|
|
Post by tailsyall on Aug 13, 2003 15:54:51 GMT -5
you mean those icons by the thread name?
|
|
|
Post by XFox Prower on Aug 13, 2003 18:21:23 GMT -5
you mean those icons by the thread name? No, not that. If I ever use html to answer a question, I will follow the above color pattern.
|
|
|
Post by tailsyall on Aug 13, 2003 20:08:44 GMT -5
the backround?
|
|
|
Post by XFox Prower on Sept 5, 2003 4:40:11 GMT -5
No, I Meant the font colors.
|
|
|
Post by AshurA on Sept 18, 2003 14:22:11 GMT -5
I'll say this right now, I am totally confused! butm don't let that stop you
|
|
Foamy
Newbie Kitsune
~Super Foamy The Squirrel~
Posts: 6
|
Post by Foamy on Sept 26, 2003 0:10:08 GMT -5
I'll say this right now, I am totally confused! butm don't let that stop you He ment when hes working on webpages all he does for the text colour(color) tag is use those colours... i.e <font="#xx | xxx | xx"> xx | xx | xx rr | gg | bb thats the colour coding, by the way theres no spaces, so say like you wanted red it'd be.. ff0000 f = ful 0 = empty
|
|
|
Post by DrumUltimA on Jan 4, 2004 22:54:56 GMT -5
|
|
A. Rian MacPherson
Average Sonic Bait
Yeah, thats right! I'm a Tails Fan and I want to get noticed!
Posts: 64
|
Post by A. Rian MacPherson on Dec 28, 2004 3:26:49 GMT -5
Oh on your examples XFox. Your examples are great but somewhat hard to understand. I diddn't really get the hang of it until you explained it to me in full detail in an AIM conversation. I don't really know what you can do to make the tutorials better. Lately I have been using an HTML 3.01 tutorial along side yours. I tried validating it but it's never valid. I have a friend that I talked to that said validation isn't important. What is your position on this XFox?
|
|
|
Post by XFox Prower on Dec 28, 2004 23:14:02 GMT -5
Validation is important. The old HTML is depricated. XHTML has been around since 1999 (going on 5 years?). Browsers that currently support XHTML are still backwards compatible with HTML. But in order for the browser to be forgiving and try to make assumptions to parse a page that has errors in it, it takes more time to process a page and higher requirements to use the browser. XHTML is based on XML. If you were to make an XML file that had an error such as forgetting to close a tag, forgetting to put attribute values in quotes, etc, the page would stop loading entirely and report an error. Browsers are being used on weaker appliances that don't have the power that a PC has, such as the Dreamcast, cell phones, etc. Pages that are fully compatible with the standards will stand a better chance of being viewable under these other devices and other media. And the page source reflects the ability of the webmaster. There's no reason to intentionally make a page invalid.
|
|
A. Rian MacPherson
Average Sonic Bait
Yeah, thats right! I'm a Tails Fan and I want to get noticed!
Posts: 64
|
Post by A. Rian MacPherson on Dec 29, 2004 0:21:09 GMT -5
Well It's not that it is intentionally invalid. It's just that it is very difficult to make it valid, even by following the tutorials. Usually I don't understand what the validator is trying to tell me. Can you recommend any books or something to help me with html or perhaps the "new" XHTML which I think would be the better way to go since you say HTML will be obsolete.
|
|
|
Post by Kaisyu on Jul 1, 2005 0:35:29 GMT -5
Not sure why but I am in a cussing mood right but I will be switch to more advancing scripts too in the future.
|
|