W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Promotion of XHTML

From: Brant Langer Gurganus <brantgurganus2001@cherokeescouting.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:18:03 -0500
Message-ID: <3E1071BB.3040307@cherokeescouting.org>
To: Nigel Peck - MIS Web Design <nigel@miswebdesign.com>
CC: www-html@w3.org, public-evangelist@w3.org
Nigel Peck - MIS Web Design wrote:

>It's great how XHTML is progressing with version 2 etc. but it strikes me
>that while the W3C is taking the specs into the future the majority of the
>Web Development world is lagging miles behind. I don't think I'm the first
>one to have noticed this but wouldn't we be better putting out efforts into
>getting other developers to do the XHTML walk rather than producing the
>XHTML run?
>
>For example, a college near to me teaches Web Design. They teach HTML not
>XHTML. People come out of there happily writing <br> tags and not closing
>their <p> tags and some will go on to create Web sites. I had an email from
>a tutor in the states somewhere who is starting to teach his classes XHTML
>this coming semester. I can't claim to having any more data than that but
>from looking at code on the sites that I see it seems that most developers
>still couldn't care less about closing their empty elements and making sure
>all elements nest properly.
>
>I'm just concerned that once XHTML 2 gets released people will hear about
>it, no backwards compatibility etc. and loads of new elements and be scared
>by it. It's okay for us making the transition because we're already fully
>aware of 1.0 but from what I've seen most are not, old habits die hard, and
>especially with the number of people that know HTML. It's not like a new
>version of Perl where the majority of users are enthusiastic about the
>language, most people couldn't care less about the language and just want to
>get the job done, how do we get them to start being more strict in their
>coding practices?
>
>For my part I've started a series of articles aimed at teaching XHTML to
>beginners, if anyone is interested it's at:
>http://www.miswebdesign.com/resources/articles/web-design-xhtml-1-1.html
>  
>
I too have noticed this.  Schools teach the worst Web design since they 
think they have to use fancy text books (which cost money, take time to 
make and purchase, etc.) when they could just use the actual 
specifications which are sometimes even easier and are monetarily free.  
By the time the textbook is printed, it is probably out-of-date and if 
adopted, it takes about five years before new text books are adopted.  
In the worst cases, Web design education is at least six years behind 
the Web specifications.  That is why you still see people writing 
presentationally using invalid HTML 3.2 through a Web editor.  Such is 
the case with my school.  Despite all my efforts, they fail to realize 
that HTML is a markup language that adds meaning, not fancy colors.  
They fail to see that this makes the language easier, not more difficult.
They seem to think:
  I have to be  a nerd to read HTML code.
  I don't want to be a nerd.
  I refuse to read HTML code.

Not only is that false logic, being a geek or nerd is not a bad thing.  
A geek is simply someone with a passion for his or her profession or 
hobby whether it be computers, sports, or something else.

Well, I hope those ramblings didn't stray too far from the original topic.

-- 
Brant Langer Gurganus
http://troop545.cjb.net/brant.xhtml


Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 11:30:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:53 GMT