quick html question

The_KiD

The_KiD

The_KiD

Permabanned
Joined
19 Apr 2006
Posts
2,333
Location
West Yorkshire
I have a website designed in very basic html, but if I put a link in the page it is automatically given a blue border.

Such as I have an image in the header which I have made in to a "mailto" link and now the image has a nasty blue border.

How can I take this off?
 
Or another alternative is to enter border="0" in your image tag. I'm assuming it's an image wrapped with a link if it has a border.

So it would look something like.... <img src="image.jpg" border="0">

Please note that this is classed as poor html coding however, as it is not XHTML 1.1.

But, if it is just for a personal website, and you don't want to dabble with CSS then it will be fine.
 
sgx.saint said:
Please note that this is classed as poor html coding however, as it is not XHTML 1.1.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, it fails XHMTL 1.1 validation, but is by no means considered "poor html coding"

It'll fly by HTML4.01 validation.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
Incorrect, it fails XHMTL 1.1 validation, but is by no means considered "poor html coding"

It'll fly by HTML4.01 validation.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the academic community. If it doesn't pass XHTML 1.1, it's considered poor HTML coding.

Never mix layout/style with your HTML.
 
sgx.saint said:
Tell that to the academic community. If it doesn't pass XHTML 1.1, it's considered poor HTML coding.

Never mix layout/style with your HTML.
Click to expand...
By academic, you mean the "fad" boys?

HTML 4.01 is valid HTML. Period.
 
XHTML has nothing to do with separation of style and structure; HTML can do that too. I've seen XHTML 1.0 sites coded far worse than HTML 4.01 sites - the presence of a validator only enforces valid code, not semantic code and total isolation of structure within the document.
 
I agree with the points you make and raise, and for the record I find XHTML 1.1 quite annoying, and often difficult to adhere to especially if you want to create a visually stunning website.

However, I am studying a degree which centres heavily around Website Development, and after receiving several lectures both in the literal and metaphorical sense stating that we must adhere to XHTML 1.1 as it is the future, and the correct way to code, then you have to understand my viewpoint.

These lectures came from both University, and third party academic individuals such as people from IEEE etc.

So, I have to follow and believe in what I have been taught.

I don't want to start an argument over this, but if my academic peers state that anything other than XHTML 1.1 is poor coding, then whom am I to believe? :)
 
Last edited:
Dj_Jestar said:
The people who wrote the standards - who although encourage people to use XHTML, throughly agree that 4.01 is perfectly valid, usable and acceptable.

http://www.webstandards.org/learn/articles/askw3c/oct2003/

There is a LOT of things that "academics" come up with in School/College/University that are, for lack of a better word, complete tripe at times.
Click to expand...

I agree, however our learning experience does not allow us to form our own opinions on this matter. At least, not unless we want to fail certain modules!
 
Just because it is the future doesn't mean you should use it in the present... I suggest wider reading and using your own experience to form your own conclusions.

I usually hand this to XHTML users: http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

Until we can serve XHTML as true XHTML, it serves us no advantages over HTML, which if it was supported would be its treatment as an XML format.

Give me one reason why I should use XHTML over HTML and I'll happily retract my statement and start using XHTML... I was one of the clueless people that read about ZOMG XHTML FUTURE and used it because it was a buzzword totally pimped by all professional web developers, later understanding its concepts and "regressing" back to good old HTML 4.01 strict.

Bottom line is that the concept of writing good, semantic code and separating structure, style and behaviour is not limited to XHTML, and that XHTML does not instantly mean better code.
 
psyr33n said:
Just because it is the future doesn't mean you should use it in the present... I suggest wider reading and using your own experience to form your own conclusions.

I usually hand this to XHTML users: http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

Until we can serve XHTML as true XHTML, it serves us no advantages over HTML, which if it was supported would be its treatment as an XML format.

Give me one reason why I should use XHTML over HTML and I'll happily retract my statement and start using XHTML... I was one of the clueless people that read about ZOMG XHTML FUTURE and used it because it was a buzzword totally pimped by all professional web developers, later understanding its concepts and "regressing" back to good old HTML 4.01 strict.

Bottom line is that the concept of writing good, semantic code and separating structure, style and behaviour is not limited to XHTML, and that XHTML does not instantly mean better code.
Click to expand...

Point well made, and I agree, as I have already stated previously.

It's just unfortunate that none of my academic peers share this view, which as a result means currently I have to conform on a professional level to the standards set out before me.

On a personal level, I can do what the hell I want.

But, I do agree that if you can effectively code in XHTML and achieve your goals, then you may as well stick to doing so, as it will aid in the learning of this developing language.
 
sgx.saint said:
These lectures came from both University, and third party academic individuals such as people from IEEE etc.
Click to expand...
And the problem here is that these academics exist solely within the closed, blinkered confines of their academic universe, and are typically oblivious to the real-world and the real-world application of their teachings.

XHTML 1.1 may be the future for XHTML (not forgetting 2.0's already in draft), but right now, as psyr33n's pointed out, it's utterly unusable if you're adhering to the standards... unless you're happy only supporting <10% of decent traffic on the Web.

XHTML isn't the sole future of the Web. Look at the WHATWG's work on HTML5/Web Forms and so on, being rolled into a W3C recommendation and having support of the the major browser developers. XHTML is just one application of markup, not the application (and even then it's just one application of XML ;)).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom