number47

It would help to know the quickest way to see the results of your code. when I am digging into learning code; or trying to write some html,css,js, I cannot get a turnaround time that works feasibly without going to this [w3schools.com] website. I was reading about text editors and html editors from a link on this sites page, I agree with what it said mostly. it recommends use basic stock default: "Text Edit, or NotePad programs". The problem with that is, if I try something that I study on this site, I have a few programs that are original come with mac, pc, when I am done editing, I than have to close or save that and than open it in a browser. The browser sometimes has different settings I always like to change to fit my needs, like cache and such. sometimes it doesn't quickly load the changes in the "HTML" and or "CSS" files. so what I do is sometimes use the Browser simulator that comes with xcode, and sometimes use my safari to inspect the changes. The easiest thing to do though is go to the web browser and look up some basic tutorial window, at the w3schools site. look up something simple or click on it and than use the editor tutorials "examples". Than erase and or insert something that I would like to try, than I get instant results. This is a pain and i feel a bit more dependent on that. Is there any quick ways that come stock and or are on a mac or pc that are best common ways to see the code results quickly? I don't want 3rd party money making or other interest software involved any more than I can feasibly keep out. why would I. I am trying to learn code after all not buy things I use the x code stuff. but I figure it has some proprietary stuff that binds up a bit when I make changes back and forth with Text edit and than x Code, and verse vice. This is like the biggest hold back around. If anyone has any answers I would love to hear (read/ or hear) that. thank you .

I like that as well, although it changes a small bit. I cannot help but feel the server is google or some very well put together, high dollar and superior setup than I can possibly put together even if I could write the page. What I mean is if I took the link there and tried to utilize the information; I feel it still would not be as robust and or functional, correct, and other things that would indicate self doubt or other problems within my code understanding. Is there any other strong roadblocks other than knowledge and experience to make a prominent page like the http://www.w3schools.com/ website? I feel like this has been a pretty encouraging forum. I am not going to give up if I hear the truth is that it wouldn't work for me, like as I described. I am just wondering. Is there a lot keeping the type of page that is different than something a person and server could code together.

I don't know the typical users setup for looking at pages and sites. I was thinking though, using CSS for displaying elements that are not "needed" but are essential to your page design seems like it could be limiting; heres how. If the bandwidth limitation of a device (bits exchanged that is known to the device owner) is too high, and the network is managed by a 3rd parties 3rd party, or something crazy. They may cut some of the css out in order to get the minimal text and basic content onto the page. I figure if you use html, the page will still maintain it's design perhaps. example is if you have <ul> list items with images. that is something that could be cut in the transaction by a lot of things I am sure (like proprietary framework, or device sub network ). when it comes to getting the url of an image from css it seems like you would have to about clock it perfect in order to not end at having the incorrect background image or proper display of it at all. I don't know this but I kinda got a good solid feeling that it is better to have HTML as you would like it to appear and CSS elements that are simple tried and true. What do you think?

What I was thinking about when I wrote that was other than css html, there must be some difference in the sites that seem really great, maybe java scripting the whole entire site and having all of the site sort of compacted and scriptable. I thought maybe that is how 90% of the better sites on the world network are put together. I like most pages and find that when I look at the source code and other elements of them, they are usually ASP, ASPX and use some different things than I would expect to see. when I look at first. I think this is a highly interactive site that is very impressive Not perfect but, if a man punched keys and made this happen, that is pretty great, Falstad? Electr/DiagramBadass interactive If I pasted the link right. That is cool, and some that I have seen that enable you to use Hardware and software that is on a server somewhere. like remote audio equipment . I hope you understand, I am not sure if most pages are hosted to display scripted content. or how most sites are (as you said presentation) "presented"

it isn't a secret if I don't know of "it", what is this you speak of? or have entered

I underlined the part that gets my interest there and thank you all for replies, " HTML should not be used for presentation" could you maybe,,, just go on ahead and sort of indulge me in that part. what context, instance? I would like if you could elaborate a bit on that? Don't want to steer your answers go ahead. I like it, but getting passed this if you can just go off on that be wordy with it I would be grateful.

in my browser it has advanced option for selecting the style sheet to be used. is there any reason you could not or wouldn't like to have your own custom style sheet that you design for basic alterations involving only the points of interest like headers or text size or so on? I always see the option and consider what would work fairly universally in a sort of way. Not my lives ambition but it could be helpful if it would work fairly smooth.

imagin? how so, are you human being? It seemed to convenient when I came across the center tag. so in order to have efficient web site html script and so on and be up to date it seems that validity from the validator can basically leave no room for creativity. does that sound correct? I mean If I decided to use an element that is not typically used in such a way, does that hinder the web site in any way. I have seen some sites that could benefit from some basic editing, also seen some that are laid out "incorrectly" and yet look great and are still navigable and useful.

Sometimes I see things that are not supported by HTML5 and other times there are things new to only html5. If I am looking at a method of installing image to a page, and there is no supported by html5 I figure, that is ok because that may be new, and I know somewhere in there "plan ahead for the future" not stick with the old. but I dont know what that matters. I figure if it is a tried and true way of "HTML" than a browser is strolling along, how would the HTML version before html5 be negatively effected. perhaps there could be a link at the html5 warnings where you could click that to see the similar method that is html5. what to do here? Not sure weather I should care about this yet. until I get the beginning "old fashion" understood better than work with new?