Dan: >>> It's better to learn the coding than to let a frontend come >>> up with its own often messy code anyway. http://www.w3schools.com :) Tim: >> While that's true, the w3schools site is NOT a good recommendation, it's >> got some fundamental errors in it. That's a bad way to start out >> learning something. Dan: > I wasn't aware of this. Can you give me an example or link? Of faults in w3schools, or for better sites? It doesn't take long to find numerous flaws with W3schools once you start reading their wrong explanations of what things are in HTML. And from then on it just snowballs. Once you know something is a bad reference, it's far better to just ignore it completely, rather than try and weed out what's correct or not. And that's something that someone who's learning it will not be able to do. They won't know what's wrong and should be ignored, and having a list of pages to ignore, and pages to believe is going to be a complete pain. Someone else has already posted links to the W3C, where the HTML specifications are codified. They're the authoritative reference, but terse and dry (rather like using reference manuals to confirm what you're doing is being done correctly), not much good for learning from scratch unless you like working that way. I recommend authoring with HTML 4.01 strict. It's your best chance at things working, and working fairly consistently. Newer version of HTML have poor support, and don't do anything that HTML 4.01 can't do, as far as web browsers are concerned. The WDG at <http://www.htmlhelp.com/> is better than the W3C for good advice for beginners, without leading them astray (like W3schools). It also has copies of the specifications, and with more descriptive information as well. -- (Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
