Okay, now I'm more confused than ever.

I've just had a little look in the bookshop and its not all as clear as I thought.
Should my website be in HTML, XHTML or XML ???
I want it to adhere to standards, etc, be for as many browsers/monitors etc as I can, and for it to be written in technologies that are gonna be here for w hile.

Is HTML on the way out in favor of XHTML?

While I'm here, is it ok to use CSS, javascript and DHTML? Are these things on the way out too?

Am I just panicking?

Advice, preese

Tanks.
🆒

    HTML is here to stay! Long live <font> and <blink>!!!!

    Ahem... sorry...

    XHTML is really the successor to HTML. It is basically an XML-compliant version of HTML.

    You don't really program a website in XML. You can, but you would basically be creating your own meta language for displaying data on your page, and since one has already been created that is XML compliant (XHTML), why not use it?

    Just remember to use XHTML to contain the data. As for the display of your site, leave that to css. If you do it properly, then all you have to do at Halloween or Christmas is substitute a new .css file, and you have a completely new look.

    DHTML is a stupid pseudo-term that wannabe web designers coined to make it sound "better" than plain old HTML. In other words, to the uneducated it looks good on their resume. The "D" means "dynamic" of course, and there is NOTHING dynamic about HTML. Procedures are what make a language dynamic, not markup. HTML is not dynamic, an neither is XML. They are Markup languages. I don't want to hijack your thread and get into a big discussion about DHTML, so I'll just leave it at that.

    As for the question of using Javascript, you'll get lots of different answers from different people -- some say they love Javascript. Some say they would never rely on it, since "some people turn it off in their browsers." Um... browsers do have the ability to turn off JS, but I don't know many people that disable it.

    My feeling is this -- if you have a number of technologies at your disposal, all of which you are capable of using, then simply use the one that best provides the solution to your needs. How's that for non-commital? 🙂

    The most important thing to realize is that the end product is all that matters. If a client of mine has a solution that is best served with Lotus Notes, then that's what I'll provide. Perhaps they have MS servers installed with IIS, and they want a cool dynamic website. As much as I prefer PHP, I will most likely give them an ASP solution, as long as it does everything they want to be able to do.

    Hope that answers your question. 🙂

      It certainly does, cheers dude! 🙂

      I don't want to hijack your thread and get into a big discussion about DHTML

      No, that's alright, go ahead - I'd like to know and learn. I have only one book on web programming - Web Design in a nutshell (O'Reilly) and it's an absolute gem imo. I won't go over whats in it or how it is arranged - too long, but its priceless for me, and it introduced DHTML. It describes it as a combination of CSS, javascript and HTML, using <DIV> tags to name elements, position co-ordinates, mouseover, etc. Seems like it could be versatile to me.

      I am so sold on PHP, it is doing things I want it to, its a joy to work with, its not you-know-who which is like re-discovering why I love programming and computers all over again. I just know PHP won't be renamed to something else in three weeks time, and - oh, I'll stop.

      I love GD too (wave flag, wave flag!)

      Now, if we could onyl have animated JPEGs...

      My other 'best book ever' award goes to PHP - Developers Cookbook (hughes/Sams) which is awesome and has that rare chapter - how to do great things with GD!!

      I may need a book dedicated to CSS and DHTML (I've seen a couple of books on just these two things funny that) and/or one on XHTML or HTML. Sounds like XHTML should be the way to go..

      What say you?

        WD in a nutshell is a good book, and in that vein, yes, that is a good definition of what DHTML is. I guess I just never really liked the term "DHTML" because the "D" doesn't really belong with "HTML." A good website is a dynamic website -- it has user authentication, and new content on a fairly regular basis. A bad dynamic website has stupid ads that fly across the screen, making it impossible to close that stupid window until it stops moving.

        You would never say that your tires get good gas mileage. No, your tires are simply a component of the car -- the car gets good mileage because of a combination of different technologies installed on it. That might include the tires, but the tires themselves don't get good mileage.

        In the same way, HTML can't be dynamic. By it's very nature, it is NOT dynamic. Neither is javascript, or PHP, or Flash. They are just technologies. The combination of these technologies, including HTML, is what makes up your website. The website itself, if it's put together with the right tools, is dynamic.

        I don't mean to sound so preachy, but I have actually been turned down for jobs because I didn't put DHTML down as one of my areas of expertise. I did have Lotus Domino, Java, Javascript, ASP, and PHP on there, but one of the first questions asked was "I don't see DHTML on here (it was listed as a requirement for the job). Do you know DHTML?" I really wanted to respond "what are you, stupid? What do you think all those things I have listed do?" I didn't. I simply replied "yes, I do know Dynamic HTML." But by that time I think the guy wrote me off his candidate list. He got that glassy look in his eye that says "doesn't matter what you say now, you're screwed."

        Anyway, yes, the O'Reilly books are very good, and that one is no exception. Don't forget to look around the web for information on CSS and XML. There is a lot of good information out there.

        I suggest looking at webmonkey.com, devguru.com, and if you really want a treat in CSS and Javascript, check out www.brainjar.com. Cool stuff there.

          I don't rely on Javascript or images (or any sort of styling) for what's really important on a site (I only mention this because BuzzLY noted the different attitudes about Javascript) unless the thing really does need javascript (web applications). Reason?

          There's a multibillionaire web expert out there with a website that millions of people regularly consult as a guide to what's on the Web.

          The expert is blind and doesn't enable Javascript.

            Simple JS, like changing a field based on the selection before it, is about as far as I go.

              Stuff like the BBCode does i do, some validation but i always double check with PHP like Buzzly said you cannot rely on Javascript 100%.

              Ive never seen the use to DHTML however. So ive never looked into.

              XHTML i suggest learning. CSS is a big yes with it if you want it compliant.

                I totally agree with buzz here: the use of the term DHTML is jsut stupid. DHTML is basically good use of javascript, and nothing more. many people use <dvi>s for their dynamic (client-side) pieces of hidden stuff sure... but it isn't a requirement. DHTMl is just a term some marketroid came up with one time. i really wish more people knew though......sigh🙁

                  The name DHTML Should be replaced by JHTML

                    No, the term DHTML needs to be thrown out and replaced with "Proper Web Development." The term DHTML refers to more than just Javascript, though. What most refer to when they talk about DHTML is the DOM. Of course, the DOM is very different between browsers, so it was a pain to use. However, my guru has led me down the path toward Web Standard enlightenment, and I am close to achieving a Zen-like state. Either that or it's frickin' 4am, and I'm a zombie.

                      I am cursing those with the Power of Decision at present; they are insisting on "development for IE" - by which they mean "dig out every IE-specific 'feature' we can find and use it in our web application".

                      Idiots.

                        PoD people. Gotta love 'em. You think that's the underlying message of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

                          I only rarely say this even when it's appropriate, but ROFLMAO.

                            Write a Reply...