I'm trying to make an online webpage for a future business idea, it's just going to be a layout at first. Would learning HTML5 be better than plain old HTML? With HTML5 you really don't need Flash for some of the cooler objects. Also i'm guessing HTML-HTML5 is easier than learning C++?
HTML5 is really HTML. You just have new tags like "<video>" and "<audio>" among others. Animated graphics and all that is really Java Script running on the page. And the rest is CSS or CSS3. HTML is just a formatting language. Example: <b>This test is bold</b> this text here isn't There is no programming. The design on how things you want to look like properly is all CSS. Special effects are Java-Script, which you may use some libraries to be able to use pre-done effects and have them very well optimized. Java-Script is the programming part. Java-Script is a programming language based on Java, which is VERY similar to C++ and Action Script (Flash). But without (in the case of C++), any memory management, and like HTML, it's very forgiving. ActionScript 1 (Flash) is the most forgiving language I ever seen. var myVar = "10"; myVar++; trace(myVar) // returns on the output window: 11, despite being said to be String due to the quotes) But that can be deadly, in a large scale stand alone Flash program, or complex web app. GoodBytes highly recommended sites: - http://www.w3schools.com/ - http://www.smashingmagazine.com/
GB is right. Both of the links are 100% relevant. As for HTML5 vs HTML/XHTML: GB said correctly that they're largely the same. The elements change around a bit between them, and HTML5 has a new page markup. Therefore, learn HTML/XHTML. That being said, How far int he future are you talking? HTML5 standards aren't anywhere near wide spread enoguh to even consider using in a wide-audience website yet, unless that audience is running browsers other than IE (and therefore probably upgrade more often). HTML5 will NOT render properly on old browsers without compatibility tools (modernizr, etc). Even then, it can be wonky. My suggestion would be: until Win8 takes of for real (and with it IE10), and until that has market share, forget about HTML5 for anything but extreme nieche sites.
IE9 does PARTS OF hmtl5 Edit: In order to NOT sound like a git. No browser (AFAIK) right now supports _all_ of HTML5. IE9 just supports LESS than the others (Opera, Safari, Chrome). IE9 (last I checked) didn't support (for example) HTML5 forms, one of the MAJOR improvements in HTML5 over HTML4/XHTML. My point is: When building websites, one should consider the lowest common denominator, and build around that. Then ENHANCE for the rest. Not the other way around, where you build around new tech and then put emergency plumbing in palce for the less cool tech. That's why I am staying away from HTML5 for the time being.
I wouldn't waste time learning any version of HTML other than HTML5. Completely disregarding IE6, very few parts of HTML5 are currently *not* supported by all major browsers. CSS3, for instance, is more or less completely supported. Remember how proper CSS(2) support (or the lack thereof) was a huge issue for years. It's mostly the slightly more obscure stuff like WebSQL/Indexed databases or WebGL. And that comes from a comparison of IE9, FF4, Chrome 11 Beta, Opera 11.10 and Safari 5.0.2. Many of these versions are already obsolete. As always, it's IE which generally speaking has the worst support, although it's *way* better than what we've been used to. And talking about obsolesence, some people jokingly state that once HTML5 has been finalized it'll already be obsolete. Less jokingly, but equally true, are the statements, that HTML5 may well be the last huge version of HTML. It's strongly believed that going forward the individual components (e.g. ECMAscript, CSS, the various APIs) will be developed independently. Oh, and did I mention that HTML5 is easier to pick up than e.g. XHTML?
PS: BentAnat is right about IE9 and forms. Roll on IE10... PPS: This was supposed to be an edit of my previous post. Alas, butterfingers...
I know about HTML5 being easier, it cuts most of the crap out you have to type with the rest. Which is why i thought id go with that but it really will be at least 2-6 years till i get the money for such a business. So i was thinking, HTML5 is the future...learn it before anyone else cares to lol My plan was to start with the basic stuff then as the code progressed and people were more aware of it, i could start getting a bit "cocky" with it if you will. Like i said though, it wont be for some years now. I've got nothing to do so knowing that would mean i don't need to pay other people to do it
Well, as GB and myself stated: XHTML and HTML5 are pretty similar. There are a good few elements that are common. The Anchor (a) for example... or the image (img), etc. Yes, HTML5 makes the web a bit more semantic. At the end of the day: With HTML5, you're going to have to accept that some of the stuff might still change, search engines might pick things upd ifferently, etc. It'll be stable in a few years only. HTML4/XHTML is pretty stable right now, and will teach you good form. HTML is an easy markup language to pick up, and as such, I don't see the pain in learning both, ESPECIALLY if you say you're not going to be using it for a few years. As for CSS3 - Without it, HTML5 isn't worth the paper that the draft is printed on. The support still varies widely, browser implementations vary more, and to say that it's "widely accepted" is jut not true. The standard is still in draft status, and while some elements are gaining support rather quickly (border-radius, you BEAUTY... same goes for box-shadow), others might as well not exist yet (gradients, some pseudo selectors, etc)
CSS3 and XHTML/HTML4 work together. Personally, I DO use CSS3 in production sites, as it serves as graphical enhancement, rather than actual markup. That means that if someone uses an old browser, it'll still work, just look less cool.
great summary there by goodbytes but my only niggle with it he describes javascript as a forgiving language to write lol. How can that be my experiences of it are its definitely not!
There are things you can do in Java-Script that if you did them in C++, the compiler or the compiled project would kill you, and chop you into peaces, and put you in a blender and turn you into a shake, and then dump in magma, drill to get you back, collect you, and trow to the sun, which electric spikes has been installed in it. (slight exaggeration, of course) For example, (a famous one) if you create a for loop, and you define variable i in it, without creating it: It will work in some web browsers, while in C++ it would fail to compile, because, well.. what is i? Proper code (in java-script) is: Then again, if you do this: in C++ it would not work, as i is defined IN the for loop, so it can only be accessed in the for loop... when you are outside, it will not work. The proper way to do it: As i has been declared outside the for loop, it can be accessed outside and after the for loop, and the for loop would still work (i will be incremented is what I mean). That is what I meant by forgiving.
Oh and if you wonder why I put "++i" and not "i++", it's because it's a more optimized way to do things, it saves a few steps for the CPU to process thing. Modern C/C++ compilers will optimize i++ to ++i in a for loop, already for you, and modern CPU's are able to do billions of operations per seconds, so it doesn't mater, or even show any sign of speed difference... but it shows to others that you know what you are doing, and that you know a few things on optimizations... Also, if you ever do programs on ultra slow processors like basic phones, or even a website for a mobile phone, or software for an appliance like something like a microwave, or dishwasher or something... it can help on the performance side of things, especially if the processor isn't a x86 architecture, where you don't have super well optimized and smart compilers available to develop for it, because it is a primitive or new or rare processor architecture. This kind of thing (among others tricks), helps on the performance side in such case.
Goodbytes thankyou for the explanation. Summed up very well and i now see what you meant want to come and teach at the uni im at? Our current lecturer is rather.....S***!
Sadly, I don't have the grades to teach. You have a choice... either get A's everywhere and you know (I am talking about computer related degree), old ways to do things, and you know nothing out of school (ie: never made a real (I mean something more than a basic calculator or TicTacToe) software as personal experience), or have your grade reduced, barely get grades or not even to get a master degree, BUT have a lot of knowledge in the field outside of school, and have personal experience out of a or several projects, as you spend more time discovering on how to do things that you don't learn in school, better and up-to-date ways, to do things, and not learn a book by heart. In addition, now every university will tell you how completely untrue that is, but courses purposely made difficult, mixed with the university telling the professors to keep a minimum amount of failures or class average, to boost university ratings. Depending on teh rating system you look at, several of them look at student failures. The more failures and low average things are the higher rating, as they assume that the classes are more demanding, that courses go a lot in depth, and that things are more difficult, therefor prepare better student. Depending on your University, you can have some profs findings way around the system... these are usually true professors, people who actually want to be a prof, and not just doing prof, because he wants funding of his own research and pursue his own theories. One way they do this, is that they explain super well the course, but the exams are somewhat hard, but because he explained so well, that you are don't have much difficulty doing the exam, and tries to get excellent score in professor evaluations... this protects them from getting problems as he can show that the exam is hard, and that he is excellent, so he is kinda immune. I got a crazy prof, and I kid you not. If you don't come to class, BTW he knows you before you step in class (freeky), he WILL CALL you at home. If you sleep in class, he will tell you to come in front of class, he will give you a dollar, and tell you go buy a coffee and come back, and if your grades slip into the failing, he will ask you to see him, and when and if you do, he will start explaining the topics you have difficulties all over again. If you don't believe me: http://tinyurl.com/453e3br Ok fine this is one of the few exceptions, which sucks for us.
