Pure HTML

The funeral service

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2

17 Replies - 1479 Views - Last Post: 05 June 2009 - 12:06 AM

#1 paperclipmuffin  Icon User is offline

  • Disassembling...
  • member icon

Reputation: 13
  • View blog
  • Posts: 944
  • Joined: 16-April 09

Pure HTML

Posted 02 June 2009 - 12:46 AM

It seems actual HTML has now become almost outdated by the "Save As Webpage" function in word. I feel sad. I will always stick with real HTML though. *wipes a tear from eye* :v:
Is This A Good Question/Topic? 0
  • +

Replies To: Pure HTML

#2 no2pencil  Icon User is online

  • Original Digital Gansta
  • member icon

Reputation: 4501
  • View blog
  • Posts: 24,965
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 02 June 2009 - 12:51 AM

I just did a rent a coder job that needed help fixing their tables. So say what you will about HTMl, the work is out there.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#3 xDutchGunn  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: 0
  • View blog
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 02 June 2009 - 02:55 AM

'Pure HTML' as in writing HTML in notepad?

Thats the way we still learn it at our school :)
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#4 firebolt  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 91
  • View blog
  • Posts: 5,561
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 02 June 2009 - 04:10 AM

I think, also, without CSS, but not that sure.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#5 dsherohman  Icon User is offline

  • Perl Parson
  • member icon

Reputation: 222
  • View blog
  • Posts: 641
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 02 June 2009 - 05:21 AM

That's nothing new, really. WYSIWY(Might)G HTML editors have been around for almost as long as HTML itself. Word may be putting that functionality into the hands of more users than it previously had been, but "web designers" have generally preferred WYSIWYMG editors that produce poorly-structured, horribly-bloated HTML all along. (DreamWeaver, anyone? *shudder*)

I don't see them ever completely replacing hand-coded HTML. Even if they're good enough to handle static pages, dynamic sites/web apps tend to build the page up from a collection of templates, each of which is an HTML fragment, not a complete document, and WYSIWYMG editors don't seem well-suited to that model.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#6 paperclipmuffin  Icon User is offline

  • Disassembling...
  • member icon

Reputation: 13
  • View blog
  • Posts: 944
  • Joined: 16-April 09

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 03 June 2009 - 12:01 AM

View Postdsherohman, on 2 Jun, 2009 - 04:21 AM, said:

That's nothing new, really. WYSIWY(Might)G HTML editors have been around for almost as long as HTML itself. Word may be putting that functionality into the hands of more users than it previously had been, but "web designers" have generally preferred WYSIWYMG editors that produce poorly-structured, horribly-bloated HTML all along. (DreamWeaver, anyone? *shudder*)

I don't see them ever completely replacing hand-coded HTML. Even if they're good enough to handle static pages, dynamic sites/web apps tend to build the page up from a collection of templates, each of which is an HTML fragment, not a complete document, and WYSIWYMG editors don't seem well-suited to that model.


Hmm.. Very true.

I didn't want to dis HTML, I love it! I was just saying It's sort of sad most people don't use HTML anymore.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#7 xDutchGunn  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: 0
  • View blog
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 03 June 2009 - 01:32 AM

Lucky for you, HTML and VBA are the only languages i know so.. gotta do something with it ;)
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#8 baavgai  Icon User is online

  • Dreaming Coder
  • member icon

Reputation: 4949
  • View blog
  • Posts: 11,358
  • Joined: 16-October 07

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 03 June 2009 - 03:23 AM

View Postpaperclipmuffin, on 3 Jun, 2009 - 01:01 AM, said:

It's sort of sad most people don't use HTML anymore.


In a sense, that's like saying most people don't use machine code anymore. HTML is in there, somewhere, it's just that some environments shield the user from it. It's still the foundation of any web content, even if it's just a bootstrap to some embedded junk.

Even if you do web pages in some convoluted IDE, I think knowledge of HTML is still relevant. I still use a text editor for the stuff.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#9 moopet  Icon User is offline

  • binary decision maker
  • member icon

Reputation: 334
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,178
  • Joined: 02-April 09

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 03 June 2009 - 10:25 AM

View Postpaperclipmuffin, on 2 Jun, 2009 - 06:46 AM, said:

It seems actual HTML has now become almost outdated by the "Save As Webpage" function in word. I feel sad. I will always stick with real HTML though. *wipes a tear from eye* :v:

Are you suggesting Word's save-as-HTML option is a new thing? Because it's not. It's been helping clueless, talentless idiots fill the web with horrible, horrible web pages for years. And nobody goes to those pages because they're awful.

HTML is not only still around, it's essential for anyone in the web development field.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#10 BetaWar  Icon User is offline

  • #include "soul.h"
  • member icon

Reputation: 921
  • View blog
  • Posts: 6,456
  • Joined: 07-September 06

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 03 June 2009 - 11:06 AM

I know and love HTML, I just can't stand not having interactivity in a website, that is why I never us Pure HTML, it has to have CSS, Javascript and PHP with it or it just isn't worth showing off.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#11 Gorian  Icon User is offline

  • ninja DIC
  • member icon

Reputation: 116
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,660
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 03 June 2009 - 01:52 PM

I learned HTML with notepad like the rest. I took a class on using Dreamweaver 8, and ended up using it only for the Syntax Highlighting, because I really dislike WYSIWIGs. In addition to bloated HTML and lots of unnecessary, but also I hate how generated HTML code is all mushed together. Makes it hard to code changes, or to fix, by hand.

I by far prefer

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Readable HTML</TITLE>
<META Name="Keywords" content="nice html">
<script>
<!-- Script Here -->
</script>
</head>
<Body>
<p>text</p>
<br>

<!-- comments -->

<!-- More HTML Code -->

</body>
</HTML>


to annoying generated code

<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Annoying HTML</TITLE><META Name="Keywords" content="annoying html"><script></script></head><Body><p>text</p><br></body></HTML>

This post has been edited by Gorian: 03 June 2009 - 01:53 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#12 Nykc  Icon User is offline

  • Gentleman of Leisure
  • member icon

Reputation: 701
  • View blog
  • Posts: 8,581
  • Joined: 14-September 07

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 03 June 2009 - 02:11 PM

Pure static HTML webpages might be dead since it is exclusively used in conjunction with CSS, Javascript, PHP|ColdFusion|ASP|JSP or some other sort of Client/Server languages. However it's main intentions were merely for displaying and sharing data.


Tim Berners-Lee created HTML in 1989 and it became a documented standard around 1992. His whole intentions were merely to exchange data between universities. He was employed at CERN (European Center for Nuclear Research).

Tags like <font>, <u>, were never meant to be incorporated into HTML. Those are considered extension tags and were used to create a fancy markup by the then dominant Netscape Browser. HTML 3.0 rid those from it's standards even though most browsers will still render them.


HTML was never meant to stray into a styling markup, just merely a document structure.

HTML 5 Standard I believe was just submitted in January of 2008 for approval.

XHTML is becoming more and more common, and will probably eventually send HTML to its final resting place.

This post has been edited by Nykc: 03 June 2009 - 02:21 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#13 xDutchGunn  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: 0
  • View blog
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 04 June 2009 - 01:06 AM

By your description Nykc, I made a "Pure HTML" page, totaly written in Notepad and I didnt use CSS or anything..
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#14 paperclipmuffin  Icon User is offline

  • Disassembling...
  • member icon

Reputation: 13
  • View blog
  • Posts: 944
  • Joined: 16-April 09

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 04 June 2009 - 01:26 AM

View Postmoopet, on 3 Jun, 2009 - 09:25 AM, said:

View Postpaperclipmuffin, on 2 Jun, 2009 - 06:46 AM, said:

It seems actual HTML has now become almost outdated by the "Save As Webpage" function in word. I feel sad. I will always stick with real HTML though. *wipes a tear from eye* :v:

Are you suggesting Word's save-as-HTML option is a new thing? Because it's not. It's been helping clueless, talentless idiots fill the web with horrible, horrible web pages for years. And nobody goes to those pages because they're awful.

HTML is not only still around, it's essential for anyone in the web development field.


CRAP!! Calm down, mate!
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#15 Nykc  Icon User is offline

  • Gentleman of Leisure
  • member icon

Reputation: 701
  • View blog
  • Posts: 8,581
  • Joined: 14-September 07

Re: Pure HTML

Posted 04 June 2009 - 06:01 AM

View PostxDutchGunn, on 4 Jun, 2009 - 02:06 AM, said:

By your description Nykc, I made a "Pure HTML" page, totaly written in Notepad and I didnt use CSS or anything..


See it is not dying.
I make them all the time, actually I am making one right now myself.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -
  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2