I agree ... Bulletproof Web Design is highly recommended.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Jon Reece
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:05 PM
To: wsg
Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML/CSS reference
They may be a little old
I was unable to find any contact
information on that site...
Without weighing in on the substance of what w3fools.com itself is saying,
I'd suggest the substantialish list of twitter usernames under From at the
top of the page might constitute a good starting point for making contact...
:P
reference
I agree ... Bulletproof Web Design is highly recommended.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Jon Reece
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:05 PM
To: wsg
Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML/CSS reference
They may
A lot of personal opinion here... but try these books:
Stunning CSS3
by Zoe Gilenwater
The CSS Anthology
by Rachel Andrew
Designing with CSS
by Andy Clarke
Transcending CSS
by Andy Clarke
http://www.transcendingcss.com/
The Ultimate CSS reference
by Tommy Olsson Paul O’Brien
Building your
Shameless! ;-)
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Apr 2011, at 00:20, Russ Weakley r...@maxdesign.com.au wrote:
A lot of personal opinion here... but try these books:
Stunning CSS3
by Zoe Gilenwater
The CSS Anthology
by Rachel Andrew
Designing with CSS
by Andy Clarke
Transcending CSS
by
They may be a little old comparatively, but Bulletproof Web Design
and Handcrafted CSS (both by Dan Cederholm) helped me in a big way.
- Jon
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Andrew Staff
andrew.st...@zebraweb.com.au wrote:
Hello all,
I was wondering if anyone on this distribution list would
Hey fellow Web Developer also named Andrew!
The Ultimate HTML Reference (SitePoint) by Ian Lloyd -
http://reference.sitepoint.com/htmlThe Ultimate CSS Reference (SitePoint) Tommy
Olsson Paul O'Brien - http://reference.sitepoint.com/css (this is the one
that Russ mentioned)
You can get them
Oh come on.
Surely you cannot dispute http://www.w3schools.com/ for the basics. Even after
all of these years. The fundamental concepts work.
Kev
http://.hotels-london-hoteks.com
From: Andrew Staff
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 11:56 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG]
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Kevin Ireson wrote:
Oh come on.
Surely you cannot dispute http://www.w3schools.com/ for the basics. Even after
all of these years. The fundamental concepts work.
I wouldn't trust w3schools.com (note that it has nothing to do with
the W3C) after looking at their
Chris wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Kevin Ireson wrote:
Oh come on.
Surely you cannot dispute http://www.w3schools.com/ for the basics. Even
after all of these years. The fundamental concepts work.
I wouldn't trust w3schools.com (note that it has nothing to do with
the W3C)
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Webb, KerryA wrote:
Chris wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Kevin Ireson wrote:
Oh come on.
Surely you cannot dispute http://www.w3schools.com/ for the basics. Even
after all of these years. The fundamental concepts work.
I wouldn't trust w3schools.com (note that it has
I wouldn't trust w3schools.com (note that it has nothing to do with
the W3C) after looking at their HTML tutorial:
http://cfajohnson.com/torontowebdesign/w3schools/
There is also this site which takes issue with W3schools:
http://w3fools.com/
Personally, I think the approach taken
On 4/5/11 7:31 PM, Webb, KerryA wrote:
You say (on that page):
The alt attribute is mandatory, not just good practice.
It's not, you know. For decorative images, it's not even recommended.
via http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG --
src %URI;
On 4/5/11 7:31 PM, Webb, KerryA wrote:
You say (on that page):
The alt attribute is mandatory, not just good practice.
It's not, you know. For decorative images, it's not even recommended.
via http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG --
src
There is also this site which takes issue with W3schools:
http://w3fools.com/
Personally, I think the approach taken by w3fools is a little too aggressive
and emotional. Though they have relevant concerns, they use phrases like the
site lies, blatantly false etc.
I agree
The things is,
You say (on that page):
The alt attribute is mandatory, not just good practice.
It's not, you know. For decorative images, it's not even recommended.
For decorative images authors should use empty alt text (alt=).
Most screen-readers read the src value if they can't find a alt
I was wondering if anyone on this distribution list would have a
recommendation for a great HTML/CSS reference bible?
Not a great reference bible, but it may help to better understand
CSS as it allows users to try things by themselves to figure out how
things work.
http://www.css-101.org
On 06/04/2011, at 3:09 PM, Thierry wrote:
I was unable to find any contact
information on that site...
Without weighing in on the substance of what w3fools.com itself is saying, I'd
suggest the substantialish list of twitter usernames under From at the top of
the page might constitute a good
18 matches
Mail list logo
