fade
Staff member
If webdesign technology gives you a techno-boner like it does me (Yes, I'm imagining you imagining that), then here's a nice little "tutorial" on HTML5 and CSS3.
http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/html- ... -be-using/
HTML5 is looking a lot more semantically sensible than the div overload of html 4.01 or xhtml 1. It seems like XHTML may die a death of attrition, which is just as well. Most of the (minor) changes it introduced weren't all that useful unless you wrote your own DTD. I hope HTML5 doesn't get stymied by proprietary tech developers like Adobe and Apple, who have both whined enough to kill the open-source video codec (again, possibly just as well, because no one would've used it, and sites would've still used proprietary video players).
(And WHY do computer nerds always feel the need to belittle posts like this? The comments are full of "not really useful because no one supports it yet" stupidity. Duh. That's why the author says it's something for the future. It's not true anyway--I wrote a simple HTML5 site, and FF and Safari rendered it just fine. Guess what didn't, though?)
http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/html- ... -be-using/
HTML5 is looking a lot more semantically sensible than the div overload of html 4.01 or xhtml 1. It seems like XHTML may die a death of attrition, which is just as well. Most of the (minor) changes it introduced weren't all that useful unless you wrote your own DTD. I hope HTML5 doesn't get stymied by proprietary tech developers like Adobe and Apple, who have both whined enough to kill the open-source video codec (again, possibly just as well, because no one would've used it, and sites would've still used proprietary video players).
(And WHY do computer nerds always feel the need to belittle posts like this? The comments are full of "not really useful because no one supports it yet" stupidity. Duh. That's why the author says it's something for the future. It's not true anyway--I wrote a simple HTML5 site, and FF and Safari rendered it just fine. Guess what didn't, though?)