Anyone know any good site creating.. well.. Sites?? Im in need. And Im not sure if Im gonna turn it into a domain but for now a free site. Freewebs has a crappy bandwith..
Printable View
Anyone know any good site creating.. well.. Sites?? Im in need. And Im not sure if Im gonna turn it into a domain but for now a free site. Freewebs has a crappy bandwith..
Freeweb is the only good one that's free. Angefire has more space, but it sucks majorly. Just get multiple Freeweb accounts.
Yeah well I guess freewebs is pretty good and mediocre but I know there's more out there..
++Quote:
Originally Posted by Meat Puppet
I started on angelfire about 10 years ago. Not so sure how it is now.
If you are just starting you can run it off your own computer of course. You don't need anything special as you an just open the .html file with your browser and browse on.
Anybasic need for releaseing it public is covered by angelfire. I think I also have used bravenet before, but beyond that I dunno.
Bipper
Id rather use a site..
Learning html and css will make it easier forever and ever.
Notepad ho for four years now.
That or you could learn to use frontpage or dreamweaver.
Dreamweaver is good. I know minor HTML, but for my site, I used Dreamweaver.
Link please?? And how do you use HTML on notepad??
I answered that on your old post:
http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69289
Dreamweaver is evil and so is frontpage- front page does NOT use standard code, and dreamweaver makes a mess of things, and if you need to edit later on, can become a pain in the arse.
I suggest notpade, or VI for the linux populace. I honestly use firstpage or TEXTPAD for thier text coloring, as well as some small fetures (like hex color picker) though thanks to css i can use rgb colors now :p (yay) - I sugges firstpage for learning though.
Bipper
You just type it in crash, and save it with a .html suffix. It's as simple as that.
but then on most windoze systems it saves it as .html.txt and still opens it as text. I am sure this is where the confusion may be. I adress the problem in the other thread to this.
Bipper
No you didn't. You told me how to do it on word pad. Not notepad..Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Edit Rubah I dunno how to change it to an .html file. It just says..
.txt
ANSI
Unicode
Unicode Big Endian
UTF-8
I've never had that problem. You can always rename it later anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
oh sorry meant notepad by that small typo - the rest is accurate. I will edit it so it says notepad though - sorry botu that :DQuote:
No you didn't. You told me how to do it on word pad. Not notepad..
Rubah, the problem lies in the fact that windowsxp and i thnk some other versions like to hide the extensions of known types. (Security so noobies :D don't screw up the application assoiciation to that file) This is a pain when working with HTML, and css files. Especially when you ar running multiple php modules on your computer, and you got apache handling the file extentions in different ways. omg.. Better just to start it right :)
Bipper
I don't have known extensions hidden, bipper. And I used to write html files back when I used windows 95. It just doesn't save them with a .txt affix. I know this, because I upload them exactly to my site.
Crash, you don't have to change the file encoding. Just type crashesfile.html in the name blank.
It doesnt matter if you change the save as type to all files, but on newly installed windows systems after windoes 98 second edition, file extensions are hidden if they are known by default. I have gon through it a million times, and just looked it up. /shrug
Its jsut a known fact to me. You must have unchecked it or somethin? If you reinstall ever, check it out quick, it should be checked. Just one of the quirks of windows being easier to use imo. I just tell people to uncheck that (when I teach) so that when we hit up apache extensions, and begin working with different serverside languages, it saves you from a lot of (duh) problems.
Bipper
Yes, as it's already been established your best option is to either CSS + XHTML or DreamWeaver/Frontpage (but those cost $).
http://www.westciv.com/style_master/...roduction.html
That's a fairly decent tutorial for CSS and XHTML in notepad, but ignore the stupid product placements for whatever the hell they're trying to get you to download.
Once you've gone through all of that tutorial, go to www.csszengarden.com and download a couple of .css files and check out what people are doing and how. Devotion = Skill, the more you put into to a page the better it'll come out.
If I may add Html is being replaced by strict xml and css in a lot of places. Learn html or xhtml (nearly the same) first, then i would suggest moving to xml. When you got a lot of dynamic content, xml is a godsend.
Bipper
Of course I unchecked it. Why on earth would I want to hide known extensions? I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a wav or a mp3 or a jpeg and a gif. That sort of thing causes a lot of trouble xD
Oh ok!! I'll try it!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
Edit: Thanks guy's!! I did it!!
Yes, I know, but if this was checked, then when you save a file as .html, (without changing the save as button - which most people get too eager and don't do anyways) It will look like an html page, since the .txt is hidden. Effectivaley causing confusion. That's all I was sayin :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
Bipper
So it's like this right??
Looks great! Good job.
I would reccomend looking up css as you learn html. Table positioning (How your getting your stuff aligned) is not reccomended by the W3c (the most pertinant body on international web standards). :) just letting ya know :)
But yes, that is the basics of webpaging. Working with Hyperlinks would be a good spot for youto go next, then images. :) Good luck bud.
bipper
I know how to make tables already..
This is the problem. You aren't supposed to use tables. If you use tables to position stuff, you'll be laughed off your free webhosting site by people who use big acronyms to confuse you. Learn CSS/XHTML. It's the standards for web design. I gave you a tutorial.
WTF, tables are god when used without borders.
They've been labeled depreciated. Along with <s> for struck-out text and a lot of other useful things.
Yes, they are being replaced with css as html was for mere markup - not layout. I still am not 100% sure why the struck out text is depriciated though /shrug
Bipper
I'm CSS impaired, but I'm HTML impaired as well. Dreamweaver uses CSS though so I learn it a bit from there, or I rip it from page source codes and paste it into Dreamweaver to see what does what. :)
They use <del> nowadays, apparently.
s, i, b, etc. aren't really needed, since those can be specified in the styles of the element in which they're contained.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Tables are still okay for tabular data, but for laying out a page, divs are the standard these days. After you spend some time learning how to use divs in conjunction with CSS to design your page, you'll never want to bother with table layouts again. It's just too bad that people are still using Internet Explorer, which throws web standards out the window and does its own thing, and I have to compensate. Here's hoping IE7 fixes that.
It makes it hard to use them on a case by case basis, the way they're supposed to. Like underlining names or italicizing titles, etc.
.italics{
font-style: italic;
}
<span class="italics">Italicized content</span>
:aimhappy:
But you'll notice. That's a lot longer and just as useful as using <i>
zomp. COMMON SENSE.
Yes but html is supposed to be for markup; css, is granted, for style. There is no reason to take away atributes of HTML that simply markup.
I know you can do them in css, but that doesn't really give the w3c a valid reason for taking them out; imo to say the least.
Bipper
Hey, tell that to the w3c *shrugs*Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
No. You want COMPLETE control. You want to be able to randomly decide one day that you want all your italicized text to be green and not italicized and only have to change it ONCE, not every time it occurs. Yes, if you're making 1 table for whatever reason you won't need CSS, but if you want a webpage you'll need CSS.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
Why would I want to make the titles of poems green @_@
But yet, I see your point. It just doesn't apply to italicized text very well I don't think xD
The idea is to not use elements with inherent properties and to let CSS control everything. What's the difference between "style" and "markup"?
What if you don't want the header or whatever it is your italisizing do be, y'know, italisized in a year or so? What if you want it to be bolded?
Edit: ZeZipster's got it.
Because you become neurotic over night and developed a liking for the color green, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
Anyone with basic knowledge of web design can go to the mall's bookstore, pick up a book on CSS and XHTML, and then learn as they go very easily. They just have to pick a book they can understand.
If your anything like me it would be because you like poems, and Green.Quote:
Why would I want to make the titles of poems green @_@
Style is global for the element it is to contribute to. Markup is single instance of a defined set of properties. The difference is vauge, but there.Quote:
Originally Posted by sepho
HTML should be respected as an older language, and its standard should not depreciate its core reson for exsistance :) Seems a little dramatic, but some documents will just be easier if made by pure html, and no css. Taking the choice away is half the mistake, now people will get laughed at or get thier integrity questioned if they are using depreciated tags. If they want to have css affect all the layout and design of html, that seems a little extreme, and i must say I find them out of thier element. If they want that they should encourage the growth of XML and CSS more than changing a set on tradition mark-up language. Tradition may seem like a strong word, but a language that structured the dawn of the web, yeah its tradition.
"Just seems like them young skater punks are trying to rob me of my good html!" - a guy I work with digressing this very toppic with me; he's over 50 :eek:
bippper
I love it how crash thought I was making some kind of joke until somebody real said it.
Is there like a rumble between rubah, beeper, and sepho on who's the best coder??
Sepho gets my highly bias vote.
Having said that, unless you're going to be making some massive site, I don't see the big deal about making it w3c compliant, or anything remotely like it. It all comes down to what you're making a page for. For example, if I was making a page rather than a website, and it was only going to be linked to once and was in no way going to be pushed into anything further (ie, a website)... then I'd just go with simple tags. It's like making a post on EoFF. I just use simple coding unless it's dealing with a large scale serious-type website like EoFF.
I'm with B0BxD on who the better coder is xD
sometimes argument is fun crash. But don't take that as a suggestion.
I've been arguing in this forum too much. I need more. I love every minute of it..
When you make a good pure CSS page, you won't want to go back to HTML. It's outdated. I'm not talking about just positioning, I'm talking about markup also. A stylesheet is just that, a stylesheet. You (or the user should be able to if you want a more interactive page, like Spoono's) should be able to change ALL of the attributes of a webpage on the fly. NO fuss. I can think of occasions where CSS is a smarter choice even for a single page, just look through MySpace pages.
www.csszengarden.com
Look through that. Every single page is pure CSS. Just look at the default XHTML page, it's absolutely nothing but header tags, div tags, and content. That's exactly how it should be. You can't get a better looking webpage than CSS unless you're making a fancy flash webpage.
CSS + XHTML is compatible, controllable, and flexible. If you aren't using it, you're making your own job harder on yourself and probably everyone who looks at your webpage.
I am not arguing who the best coder is. There are tons of coders out there all at great at different things. My specialty happens to be multimedia programming with and C++. I also do a LOT of web page development and have to know this stuff.
I don't think I would ever talk to anyone who thought they knew everything about computers. The only point where there was a dissagreement was where I was trying to explain about windows hiding file extentions and such. Making it confusing for those starting on web dev. I think it ended up being more of a miscommunication or misunderstanding than an argument.
Also, I do agree with Zip here in that css is the easier alternative. I go as far as to say that HTML should never even be used is web development anymore. XML schemas with a css sheet can make the same output, with out the propritary definitions of Html in there to screw anything up. I think HTML has its place as a stand alone markup language, and I am kind infuriated to see the w3c butcher it to make it css's mule language when that spot should simply be filled by XML.
Arguing when done correctly, is the best way to learn. When you put everything you got forward and keep your mind open, and you see it fail then you know you should change somthing. :D
Bipper
The best is Xanga you can do almost anything. Even if you dont know HTML. But the one that the cat dude said is probably better...
No, crash. Discussion on the subject of HTML and CSS. This isn't a battle of egos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaos Prophecy.Crash..
And it was a genuine curiosity. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper