Min Requirements for a Web Page

John Scott · Share | #1 (**permalink**) 05-05-2006, 07:26 PM

What are the min requirements for a web page? Code wise?

Could you just have a have without <HEAD> or Doctype?

littleFella · #2 (**permalink**) 05-05-2006, 07:36 PM

A blank file with nothing in it will open in a browser. Therefore, I'd say this is minimum.

John Scott · #3 (**permalink**) 05-05-2006, 07:50 PM

What about a blank file with :

Code:

<b>Hi there!</b>

Are the HTML, Head and Body tags unnecessary?

Nintendo · #4 (**permalink**) 05-05-2006, 08:42 PM

I never worry about the body, head, Doctype stuff. Just the title stuff,

<BODY bgcolor="000000" TEXT="ffffff" link="00ff00" vlink="ffab00">

then the content.

**Cricket** · #5 (**permalink**) 05-05-2006, 08:45 PM

Y'all aren't into W3C valid pages, huh?

Nintendo · #6 (**permalink**) 05-05-2006, 09:22 PM

Not at all. Search engiens have no trouble indexing them, and visitors have no trouble viewing them!!! All that valid stuff does is make more work for making pages. The KISS rule works nice!!!

Dan Williamson · #7 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 06:38 AM

This is my minimum:

HTML Code:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
   <title>The minimum of HTML Webpage - Dan Williamson</title>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
</head>
<body>
 <p></p>
</body>
</html>

I always code to the W3C and web standards

DaveyBoy · #8 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Williamson

This is my minimum:

HTML Code:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
   <title>The minimum of HTML Webpage - Dan Williamson</title>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
</head>
<body>
 <p></p>
</body>
</html>

I always code to the W3C and web standards

You mean you let Dreamweaver code for you?

Dan Williamson · #9 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveyBoy

You mean you let Dreamweaver code for you?

1) I don't own Dreamweaver
2) I don't use WYSIWYG editors
3) I hand code in Notepad...

So please don't accuse me of using something that doesn't code CSS correctly. Also I copied and paste d the code off my site as I couldn't be bothered typing it all out. http://dan-williamson.co.uk if you would like to see the code.. Faggot.

Also I always thought Dreamweaver gave you a transitional doctype but I don't have much knowledge on Dreamweaver. Plus check my CSS on the site, if I used Dreamweaver the CSS would be totally different.

DaveyBoy · #10 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Williamson

1) I don't own Dreamweaver
2) I don't use WYSIWYG editors
3) I hand code in Notepad...

So please don't accuse me of using something that doesn't code CSS correctly. Also I copied and paste d the code off my site as I couldn't be bothered typing it all out. http://dan-williamson.co.uk if you would like to see the code.. Faggot.

Also I always thought Dreamweaver gave you a transitional doctype but I don't have much knowledge on Dreamweaver. Plus check my CSS on the site, if I used Dreamweaver the CSS would be totally different.

Some people can't take jokes huh

On Dreamweaver you can choose Transitional or Strict, by the way.

reteep · #11 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 09:57 AM

Without setting doctypes and the usual yadayada it's not guaranteed that it'll work on every browser, or let's say look the same on every browser..

John Scott · #12 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 10:19 AM

Thanks for all the answers guys

Dan Williamson · #13 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveyBoy

Some people can't take jokes huh

On Dreamweaver you can choose Transitional or Strict, by the way.

I can take jokes, just not about using crappy WYSIWYDG editors like Dreamweaver.

DaveyBoy · #14 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 01:25 PM

Hmmm yeah well I use it and it makes me money so i'm happy to endorse it to others, oh yes

paranoidandroid · #15 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

but I don't have much knowledge on Dreamweaver.

Yet you seem to think you are qualified to make statements such as-

Quote:

I can take jokes, just not about using crappy WYSIWYDG editors like Dreamweaver.

I would always recommend people starting off in web design to learn to code by hand, it's how I started, but in the real world you simply don't have a couple of months to spend typing away in notepad to complete a single project. Yes Dreamweaver has a tendency to insert 'dirty' and unnecessary code but it also takes a lot of the mundane time consuming tasks out the design/development process.

If you don't like the way Dreamweaver handles CSS there is nothing stopping you creating the stylesheet in a different program or coding it by hand. Most professional designers/developers have default stylesheet they are happy with and then adapt this for each project, the same goes for html pages. Even if you do use a wysiwyg editor there is nothing stopping you diving into the code when you want to.

Finally if you start applying for web design/development don't be surprised when they request you have Dreamweaver (and/or other wysiwyg) skills. And whatever you do, if they mention Dreamweaver don't call them a faggot, you will come across as being an arse.

DaveyBoy · #16 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 04:19 PM

Hit the nail on the head, mate.

I currently am having to create 3 to 4 average sized sites per week as part of the freelance deal i have going on, and even though i can pretty competently code html and some css skills too, there's no way I am prepared to sit there and do it myself. Seems a bit silly to do that when 'time is money'.

I spend about 60% of my time on each site in Photoshop, 30% in Dreamweaver and the rest in testing and fixing for cross-browser. I hardly ever really delve into the code. Yet these sites load fast, look good to everyone who views em and are generally as i envisaged them.

Some designers see WYSIWYG editors as a form of 'cheating' which is all fair and good until you try to get a job in the real world and realise that when there are deadlines to reach and such, coding by hand simply isn't a viable option most of the time.

digiweb · #17 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 04:24 PM

Minimum for which purpose? html, body, /body, /html used to be the minimum to render, that was eons ago.

Ohiosweetheart · #18 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveyBoy

Some designers see WYSIWYG editors as a form of 'cheating' which is all fair and good until you try to get a job in the real world and realise that when there are deadlines to reach and such, coding by hand simply isn't a viable option most of the time.

no way is a WYSIWYG editor cheating! Using one is HOW I learned html. I've always used Arachnophilia html editor. I learned all I know about html, codes, tags, tables, etc from it, no classes no nothing.
Anyone who puts that down, is ignorant, imo

paranoidandroid · #19 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 04:36 PM

I am in a similar situation as you are DaveyBoy, when you need to change a bit of code on every single page of a 100+ page website, or you have to do a complete site from scratch in a couple of days, things like Dreamweaver become a life saver.

Although I would not go completely along with the quote below I found on another forum, it does kind of make a decent point, and at the very least might get some peoples backs up

Quote:

I was taught how to “make fire” using flints and tinder, in the boys scouts.
Now I have long since made the huge leap forward to disposable gas lighters. It was still good to learn a new skill though.

There are those who claim they can code quicker by hand than in Dreamweaver but they are a rare breed, and the people willing to employ them have got to be even rarer.

DaveyBoy · #20 (**permalink**) 05-07-2006, 04:41 PM

Yeah it's funny too that I only use about 1% of the power of each app (PS and DW) cos like, when i make sites in DW i never use the actual Site function, i just make the separate pages and i use includes for navigation, header, footer etc. Just the way i taught myself when i had Dreamweaver 2

I never use Behaviors or anything either. In photoshop, i hardly ever use filters, just shapes, colours, and a few layer styles.

Oh and if you MUST hand-code, can't you upgrade to Notepad++ or 1stPage2000?