Site Builder

[Loony BoB]

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.

[rubah]

I'm with B0BxD on who the better coder is xD

sometimes argument is fun crash. But don't take that as a suggestion.

[crashNUMBERS]

I've been arguing in this forum too much. I need more. I love every minute of it..

[ZeZipster]

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 It's outdated.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.

[bipper]

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.
Bipper

[Lawr]

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...

[Sepho]

Is there like a rumble between rubah, beeper, and sepho on who's the best coder??

No, crash. Discussion on the subject of HTML and CSS. This isn't a battle of egos.

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.

And it was a genuine curiosity. Thanks.