Totul despre HTML, XHTML, XML, CSS, Flash design, Web Design (tutoriale + dezbateri)
#55
Posted 15 September 2006 - 19:57
Purice`, on Sep 15 2006, 20:49, said: Andrei intra pe www.kirupa.com sa vezi ce inseamna minimul de cunostinte de flash (acolo ma uit eu) si pe urma mai vorbim daca stii sau nu flash! Quote Eee... si cu voi , adica cu tine , dever , ii taiati craca de sub picioare |
#56
Posted 15 September 2006 - 20:06
Si eu ii injuram in sine mea(in special pe tauxxx) :D (sper sa nu vada ce scriu) ,dar chiar m-au ajutat foarte mult si le multumesc!
Ideea e cea pe care ti-am scris-o in pm. . |
#57
Posted 17 September 2006 - 22:19
intrerup firul discutiilor cu o intrebare
care este diferenta REALA dintre HTML si XHTML si de ce sa trec pe XHTML asa cum recomanda lumea ? la w3schools XHTML-Why Quote
All New Browsers Support XHTML XHTML is compatible with HTML 4.01. [nu si Internet Explorer pe care eu il consider destul de popular ~ 70% market share] Quote
We have reached a point where many pages on the WWW contain "bad" HTML. etc. Quote Today's market consists of different browser technologies, some browsers run Internet on computers, and some browsers run Internet on mobile phones and hand helds. The last-mentioned do not have the resources or power to interpret a "bad" markup language. Therefore - by combining HTML and XML, and their strengths, we got a markup language that is useful now and in the future - XHTML. XHTML pages can be read by all XML enabled devices AND while waiting for the rest of the world to upgrade to XML supported browsers, XHTML gives you the opportunity to write "well-formed" documents now, that work in all browsers and that are backward browser compatible !!! Quote
http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml destul de tehnic Quote If you use XHTML, you should deliver it with the application/xhtml+xml MIME type. If you do not do so, you should use HTML4 instead of XHTML. The alternative, using XHTML but delivering it as text/html, causes numerous problems that are outlined below. Unfortunately, IE6 does not support application/xhtml+xml (in fact, it does not support XHTML at all). Quote
http://friendlybit.c...-is-a-bad-idea/ Quote They decided to do something about the lousy code people wrote and standardized a new language for the web. XHTML takes the tags from HTML but adapts the language so that it becomes compatible with XML. The result is a language that can (and should) be parsed with an XML parser. [...] So XHTML is hard to get parsed the intended way in current browsers. Instead most people using it decide (or don’t know otherwise) to parse it like if it was HTML. But doesn’t that defeat the biggest reason to user XHTML in the first place? The only big difference between HTML 4.01 and XHTML is that XHTML can be parsed as XML! As long as you parse your code as HTML there’s no reason to use XHTML. [..] Quote
http://www.elementar...use-html-4.html Quote “I’ve used xHTML for 5 years, from 2001 til 2006. My original reasons for using it were that it was supposed to be the future. It would have benefits like in-line SVG and MathML. It was presented as TheThingToUse™ with CSS. ce inteleg eu: ca din moment ce zicem browserelor ca XHTML sa fie tratat ca text/html sa nu aiba rost trecerea de la 4.01 la xhtml 1 (nu am nevoie de grafica SVG sau MathML ce imi pasa mie de xhtml) 2.formatarea codului tine strict de semantica si eu daca fac "bad html" e problmea mea. 3. cam singurul folos (oare) ar fi pentru dispozitive mobile si cum vezi tu ele nu stiu de "bad html". Deci pentru ca scriu altii prost eu trebuie sa trec pe ceva care creeaza mai multe probleme. alte resurse: http://www.xml.com/p...e-into-xml.html XHTML media type test - results http://www.w3.org/Pe...a-types/results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xhtml Edited by Gobi, 17 September 2006 - 22:39. |
#58
Posted 17 September 2006 - 23:02
hmm....
Normal ca nu am invatat tot, dar am invatat baza, restul se invata din mers, se mai improvizeaza.... am dat si eu de w3school acum cateva zile.... In plus nu cred ca este cineva pe forumul asta care poate sa spuna "STIU TOTUL" Mie personal mi-e mai usor sa invat din exemple deja existente, decat sa citesc o carte sau un tutorial In plus cred ca forumul este facut pentru a ne ajuta unii pe altii, si nu a ne critica... Pentru cei care critica, mai bine va abtineti. Cu stima, EU |
#59
Posted 18 September 2006 - 10:27
Gobi, on Sep 17 2006, 23:19, said: intrerup firul discutiilor cu o intrebare care este diferenta REALA dintre HTML si XHTML si de ce sa trec pe XHTML asa cum recomanda lumea ? When properly used, W3C standards enhance accessibility and promise long–term durability (which we call “forward compatibility”) for any document published on the web. If you care to reach the largest audience for the longest time possible, you want to work with web standards, and where document structure is concerned, XHTML is the way to go. |
#60
Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:15
http://lachy.id.au/l...xhtml-beginners
I don’t particularly want to start up the XHTML vs. HTML debate again, nor simply reiterate that XHTML as text/html is extremely harmful; and I must stress that both HTML and XHTML have their uses and it’s important to use the right tool for the job. But for beginners, there needs to be a clear answer with a clear learning path, and those of us teaching them need to be united in our position. For if beginners are hearing different answers from different parties, only confusion will result and we may end up losing them to dark side of the force forever. Let me start off by saying that XHTML is not for beginners. We must start with HTML and have a clear learning path towards the future with XHTML. It has been argued, that since the future lies with XHTML (although that is yet to be seen), we should be teaching XHTML from the ground up. That sounds nice in theory, but the reality is that we’re still teaching in a predominately text/html environment, and the fact is: trying to teach XHTML under HTML (tag-soup) conditions is like trying to teach a child to swim by throwing them in the deep end and not realising they’re drowning until it’s too late. When it comes to XHTML: there is far too much for a beginner to learn, not to mention the significant issues of browser support, that we must simply accept that they’re not ready and teach them HTML instead. XHTML is not merely HTML 4 in XML syntax, it comes packaged with all the XML handling requirements as well, with great big “Fragile” and “Handle with Care” stickers on the front of the box. Despite all the myths surrounding the ability to use XHTML as text/html and then simply make the switch to XML when browser support improves, there is significant evidence to show that XHTML developed in a text/html environment will not survive the transition to XML. The sheer number of tag-soup pages claiming to be XHTML are a direct result of pushing it upon newcomers while leaving out all the extremely important details, most of which they won’t understand yet anyway, but do actually need to learn before using it. I won’t go into the details here, but these issues with XHTML include, among others, the following; and I guarantee that if you ask a beginner (who learned XHTML under HTML conditions) about any of them, they’ll look at you blankly, without a clue what your talking about. General Markup Issues
MIME and Encoding
Scripts and Stylesheets
The vast majority of those do not apply, or are at least not exposed well, under HTML conditions. Therefore, because of all of this and the fact that most beginners will be learning under HTML conditions, XHTML is not safe for beginners to learn. By teaching XHTML to beginners, we’re really only teaching a new form of tag soup under the guise of “standards based development” and it is doing significantly more harm than good. Experienced users who are competent enough to understand all of these issues and make an informed decision about whether to use HTML or XHTML may do so, but we cannot expect the same from beginners. So, let me reiterate that we must be united on this issue and we must encourage beginners to start with HTML, not XHTML. Quote Quote Interestingly in the past; I have had some people tell me Internet Explorer 6.0 understands XHTML perfectly-well if sent as application/xml but people say strange things. there is an XSLT workaround that can make IE convert an XHTML document served as application/xml into HTML, but it’s still effectively treating it as HTML once it’s converted and uses up a lot of resource in IE, which causes an unnecessary delay for IE users, so it’s pointless. There’s definately no native support for it. To test it, make an XHTML document, give it a .xml extension and open it from your local file system. The result will be the same if served as application/xml from the web. Quote Quote Regardless of whether or not pages should be served as application/xhtml+xml (which is besides the point in terms of learning markup), people should always learn and use XHTML because XHTML is the future and HTML is long dead, and rightly so for many reasons. SVG is now supported in Firefox 1.5. Please tell me learning HTML allows me to quickly learn SVG, for mobile audiences and implementing microformats? The use of SVG certainly requires XML conditions and if, as a beginner, you’re learning XHTML with SVG, you must be learning under XHTML and that is OK. The article is mostly addressing the vast majority of cases where beginners learn under HTML conditions and therefore may as well be using HTML. |
#61
Posted 18 September 2006 - 12:36
darkangelbv, on Sep 18 2006, 00:02, said: hmm.... Normal ca nu am invatat tot, dar am invatat baza, restul se invata din mers, se mai improvizeaza.... am dat si eu de w3school acum cateva zile.... In plus nu cred ca este cineva pe forumul asta care poate sa spuna "STIU TOTUL" Mie personal mi-e mai usor sa invat din exemple deja existente, decat sa citesc o carte sau un tutorial In plus cred ca forumul este facut pentru a ne ajuta unii pe altii, si nu a ne critica... Pentru cei care critica, mai bine va abtineti. Cu stima, EU |
#62
Posted 18 September 2006 - 13:21
Mersi de sustinere @DjAndrewMoshu ...
Ai rezolvat cu scriptul de logare? daca vrei iti dau scriptul modificat de mine... l-am facut pentru pagina de download cu care se va imbogatii site-ul meu... Are grafica, meniu care face scroll odata cu pagina, deci ramane vizibil permanent... afiseaza Ip, rezolutie exran si ora la care s-a facut ultimul refresh al paginii... Acum ma apuc de un script care sa faca un "ranking" al fisierelor downloadate |
#63
Posted 18 September 2006 - 14:53
Deci am o "mica" dilema... cum fac, ca atunci cand dau click pe un link din panoul de navigatie, acea pagina sa se deschida in aceiasi pagina, dar fara sa mai trebuiasca sa introduc codul pentru meniu si alte chestii??
Numai cu Iframe se poate? Vazusem undeva cu META refresh.. dar nu stiu pe unde am vazut, si nici daca face ce vreau eu... Hai sa vad cine imi da solutia... ca va tot dati atat de rotunzi de parca ati fii buricii pamantului (stie ei cine) Ca era sa uit... va dau si linkul.. user test parola test , ca sa va usurez munca... |
#64
Posted 18 September 2006 - 15:09
Ca sa putem intelege mai clar, vrei sa detaliezi putin problema? Cumva doresti sa deschizi o pagina noua fara sa trebuiasca sa scrii si codul "exteriorului" (meniu, header, footer, etc) si sa schimbi doar continutul? Daca da, frame-urile si javascriptul sunt singurele tale solutii.
|
|
#65
Posted 18 September 2006 - 15:28
Deci vreau ca partea de sus, aceea cu iesire si profil sa nu se incarce din nou, si nici meniul, deci doar continutul de sub aceste div-uri, daca ma intelegi
adica in momentul in care dau click pe freeware continutul paginii curente sa fie inlocuit cu continutul paginii freeware.php si tot asa... |
#66
Posted 18 September 2006 - 15:54
Daca nu vrei sa fie incarcata real, si sa folosesti aceeasi pagina, javascript sau frame-uri. Daca doar nu vrei sa rescrii codul, foloseste include
|
#67
Posted 18 September 2006 - 16:34
Pai daca folosesc include nu adauga la continutul existent??
sterge ce este pe pagina initiala??? |
#68
Posted 18 September 2006 - 19:37
Gobi, on Sep 18 2006, 13:15, said: [/indent]Ok, deci eu sunt confuz. Pe de o parte XHTML este mai strict in ceea ce priveste semantica si erorile apar des daca nu respecti regulile dar de ce am un site care mi-se spune ca valideaza ca XHTML 1.0 Strict cand defapt acesta este cu extensia fisierului *.html (cum sunt majoritatea) si nu *.xml ?. |
#69
Posted 18 September 2006 - 21:13
|
#70
Posted 18 September 2006 - 21:14
#71
Posted 18 September 2006 - 21:18
Ok, arunca un ochi aici: http://ro2.php.net/m...ion.include.php Practic, continutul fisierului precizat este scris in locul in care este folosita functia include. Deci, daca doresti sa nu repeti aceeasi secventa de cod in o gramada de pagini poti folosi include. Evident, functia contribuie si la creearea unui cod mai curat
Insa probabil ca un moderator ar trebui sa mute posturile legate de site-ul lui darkangelbv intr-un topic separat. |
#72
Posted 19 September 2006 - 10:53
Nu cred ca are rost sa mute, pentru ca numele topicului este "Totul despre HTML,XHTML,XML,CSS,Flash design,Web Design(turoriale + dezbateri)" prin totul si dezbateri inteleg orice sugestie/problema...
@DjAndrewMoshu ai rezolvat problemele?? |
Anunturi
▶ 0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users