Ah, this one's old enough
Ah, this one's old enough that if you have a decent library, they should have it. Just check the errata part of the book, which links to a web page listing any errors discovered after that edition's printing.
$100 seems like a lot, but maybe it is a good book.
I'll tell you this, a colleague brought in a book called The XHTML Bible (part of a Bible series cause I've seen others with the same name and styling) published in 2005 and I swear to God the code in there looked 10 years older, recommending crap like the tag and adding that Javajunk Flash generates into your page.
Almost any book written by one of the Big Web Dudes is good, so long as it's recent. So that'd be Jefferey Zeldman, Eric Meyer, Paul O'Brien, Cameron Adams, Ian Lloyd, Molly Holzschlag??, etc. There's a bunch of them and you see there names on stuff about accessibility, standards, good practises, blah blah. Though that doesn't mean a no-name isn't any good-- it's just an unknown quantity.
But heck, see if the book your other forum recommends is in your local library. Then you can check it out (literally) and if you find it indispensible then you can go buy it knowing it was worth the money.
Max71 wrote:Thanks Stomme.
Thanks Stomme. I'll check it out. PVII has a book they recommended. Quite expensive at $100US
There is no book for learning a dynamic technology worth $100. Even basic reference books, running 800–1400 pages of get-down-and-dirty, will only cost $45–60 US, new. Cheaper at Amazon or used. Even cheaper, many references are online for free; case in point, PHP has an excellent online manual that is constantly updated. So does Apache. The Emacs manual, all 3MB (no pictures even!) is online, or the 600+ page dead tree version is about $30.
Once you've learned the basics, and got your feet wet with tutorials, a book like Sp suggested, and experiments in the privacy of your own home, forums like this and others, and mailing lists give you the chance to learn by trying to solve other people's problems, and studying the answers they get.
Molly Holzschlag?? I'll
Molly Holzschlag?? I'll say no more.
As Gary says. Ultimately books are not hugely useful, we have quite a few yet the only ones of any real worth and that get thumbed through are those tech references on say reg ex or sql, all the real info you need is online which does make rather a lot of sense really
Makes sense. The web and its
Makes sense. The web and its standards just are compatible with old world year to print books.
Well even the big boys need to be on this site. For fun I was reading an article on the BBC website and checked it with the HTML validator. 201 errors and 3 warnings! :bigoops:
Gee my little six (which are the same error - doesn't like end of template editor message) are nothing.
Most of those old line large
Most of those old line large web sites were developed pre css, and still use a lot of old style markup. They have major problems where updating is concerned. With all those legacy pages, and the need to keep some degree backward compatibility with their own pages, combined with the cost of dual maintenance makes the cost of an overhaul prohibitive.
I recall reading of a 'known' standardista design house revamping a major site at a cost well into seven figures. (Sorry, no citation.) Can you imagine the dialogue?
Webmaster: We need to rewrite our web site to bring it up to standards.
Chief Financial Officer: How much will it cost?
WM: Oh, about one and a half million pounds.
CFO: That's a lot. Did the site stop working?
WM: Um, no. It's just written to outdated recommendations.
CFO: [blank stare]
That fantasy conversation aside, well structured, semantic and well formed markup is easier (cheaper) to debug, maintain and alter. The Beeb would gain by refactoring their site to best practice. Whether it would gain enough, quickly enough to justify the expenditure is the question. Of course they could just raise the TV license tax to pay for it. (A tax to watch TV? What kind of fascist/commie/pinko crud is that?)
It's also something you (and
It's also something you (and everyone looking around to see what's going on with CSS and HTML) need to keep in mind. Lots of people start out looking at big, financially successful corporations and their web sites. Even if they are an IT company, they are pretty likely to have steaming piles of code. I do remember everyone jumping up and down and pointing at ESPN for taking a big leap and moving over to CSS (I assume from a tabled site). Chances are that the CSS isn't cutting-edge or up-to-date-- they took a financial risk just moving over to CSS at the time, as they were a very large site and their uptime is pretty critical.
The pages most likely to be really semantic and valid and no errors are those of "standardistas" and likely any page that has anything to do with disabilities/accessibility on the web. And even then, if it's an older site their CSS won't be totally up to date. I think I remember trying to get Eric Meyer's hover span tooltip thingie working when I was looking at his site with IE, but he didn't have the trigger it sometimes needs. Paul O'Brien's site is pretty outdated and he just doesn't have the time to update it, plus it's ugly : ) Mike Cherim keeps fairly on top of his pages and they are going to be valid and accessible as hell. There you have one guy with total control over a not-that-huge site. No way you can get that with, say, Coca Cola which has a wholly different site for every COUNTRY!! With wholly different content and designs even. ...And then they change it every few months to keep up with their ad compaigns.