dubdisciple
Keep in mind that html 4 was often used in a way that required lots of hacks and workarounds. In fact backwards compatibility is a much bigger problem with html 4 documents than xhtml. Older browsers will read xhtml just fine because it is very basic and clean code with no hacks. With html 4 different broswers and device s have very unpredicatble results due to the very different ways each handles the hacks necessary for formatting layout. I remember the nightmares I used to have getting sites to look the same using firefox, IE and Safari. The really awesome thing about seperating content from style is that you can make the most basic layout or the most elaborate without touching your html. Same thing goes for platforms. I used to basically design three sites and embed a browser detection script. Pain in the you know what and hellish to make changes.

Well from my rudimentary understanding of XHTML it looks like it takes the rules of regular HTML and enforces them which I'm okay with because I don't want to/wouldn't be sloppy about things anyway. The DOCTYPE stuff will take some study but I'm sure that won't be TOO hard (I hope). It's the CSS that worries me. The code looks more complex and since it's newer I have this bad feeling that it's going to get screwed with thus potentially breaking any sites I use it on.
 
It does look convenient for certain things but to me those things are mostly frivolities considering how I've been planning to grunt my way through this. I'll be doing a lot of dummy ups of my pages to see what works and what doesn't for my needs but if I can avoid doing anything beyond regular old school tags I certainly will.
 
I guess my biggest problem is trusting the W3 folks from "helpfully" buggering up all my hard work by encouraging the browser programmers to change how things are read. I'm looking for a sure bet. A code it and forget it type deal. 4.1 so far seems like that bet... except now I see this silliness of "not supported by HTML5" nonsense on the tag reference pages. I'll just have to read more I guess.

I just created both a marketing website from scratch and got a forum up and running from scratch.
 
Basically, I'm just doing a lot of scratching for very little scratch. 

craigb
I just created both a marketing website from scratch and got a forum up and running from scratch.
 
Basically, I'm just doing a lot of scratching for very little scratch. 

Well if I had the dough (or if I end up acquiring some dough) for consultant compensation I could definitely use an experienced hand guiding me with my adventures. For now I gotta hack through the basics to get a handle on WTF all this crud is about and how to cram my square peg ideas into this round hole called the intertubes. Gonna be a lot of notepad mockups, Save(s) As HTML (or I guess XLM?) and "Open With X browser" to see how it all looks.
 
The nice thing is I already have a ton of content and templates in Notepad which was actually a fortunate newbie accident. I just liked working with it better for writing as opposed to rich text. I just need to wrap tags around the stuff and it should be good to go (or so I thought until today).

*stupid forum software*

Honestly, I would just forget about backwards compatibility and look to make the most up to date page you can. The thing about people with ancient browsers is, they're pretty much used to viewing modern pages that don't format correctly for them. I think you'll find that the vast majority of old browser users are either very old themselves, or they're using a computer at work that hasn't been updated in eons. I wouldn't worry about catering for the holdouts - they're a tiny percentage of your potential audience.

If HTML5 is the future then just use that. As for your design, well you don't need to be "fancy" but I would definitely think about putting some effort into making it look modern and presentable. I think when people see "bare bones" web pages with old style HTML layouts and tables, they're subconsciously put off. A little effort into making some page element graphics will go a long way when you learn how to apply them to all of your pages with CSS.

The DOCTYPE stuff is not so bad since most of the the time it will be the same. CSS looks more intimidating than it is and actually makes more since after the newness wears off. I have yet to come across anyone who gave it a fair shot who quit because they could not get it. Just give it a little time :)

sharke
Honestly, I would just forget about backwards compatibility and look to make the most up to date page you can. The thing about people with ancient browsers is, they're pretty much used to viewing modern pages that don't format correctly for them. I think you'll find that the vast majority of old browser users are either very old themselves, or they're using a computer at work that hasn't been updated in eons. I wouldn't worry about catering for the holdouts - they're a tiny percentage of your potential audience.

If HTML5 is the future then just use that. As for your design, well you don't need to be "fancy" but I would definitely think about putting some eff

One specific problem that absolutely MUST be overcome is the nature of the bulk of the specific content. It absolutely HAS to display correctly. Any line out of place throws the whole thing out of whack. We're talking text based charts and graphs. It does indeed work with standard HTML but slight variations in code or formatting destroy the whole thing. Otherwise I'll have to resort to images which would crank up the bandwidth and defeat some of the brute force user functionality I have in mind.

Beepster

sharke
Honestly, I would just forget about backwards compatibility and look to make the most up to date page you can. The thing about people with ancient browsers is, they're pretty much used to viewing modern pages that don't format correctly for them. I think you'll find that the vast majority of old browser users are either very old themselves, or they're using a computer at work that hasn't been updated in eons. I wouldn't worry about catering for the holdouts - they're a tiny percentage of your potential audience.

If HTML5 is the future then just use that. As for your design, well you don't need to be "fancy" but I would definitely think about putting some eff

One specific problem that absolutely MUST be overcome is the nature of the bulk of the specific content. It absolutely HAS to display correctly. Any line out of place throws the whole thing out of whack. We're talking text based charts and graphs. It does indeed work with standard HTML but slight variations in code or formatting destroy the whole thing. Otherwise I'll have to resort to images which would crank up the bandwidth and defeat some of the brute force user functionality I have in mind.

That's not much of a problem - the web is chock full of pages with text based charts and graphs. When you're designing a web page you have to constantly check how it looks in all browsers (I believe there are online tools which allow you to see what it would look like in old browsers) and when oddities occur, it's a matter of researching what the issue is and fixing it. Most of these oddities are well documented and have tried and tested workarounds and hacks to get around them. Every web designer uses them. But again, this is a good reason to get to grips with CSS and use a framework like the 960 grid which has predefined styles that are designed to work in ALL browsers and has the workarounds built into them.

This is great stuff, guys.
 
Now here's a question. Considering CSS seems to be bulkier than HTML tags does it use extra bandwidth? Does it consume extra resources on the end user's system?
 
I ask because another reason I want to keep things simple if the fact that there is no way in heck I could afford dedicated server space or even Premium or Virtual server nonsense. So if there is any lag on the server + the end user has an underpowered system + a crappy connection I'd still like things to be as snappy as possible. I'll also be looking into things like Cloudfare to help in this regard.
 
As far as people being put off by text based sites... well I think really the content should speak for itself and any extra distractions would actually make the site LESS appealing for those seeking that content. Might be a tough sell I guess considering how people are so used to flash and dazzle but I hope to make it all very elegant and appealing. I'm pretty good with layout and the charts are kind of dazzling on their own. It's just making them appear as they should across all platforms that could pose a challenge... but perhaps not if I stick to standards.
 
Anyway... my rant turned into an interesting and educational thread. Thanks, dudes. You rock.

CSS saves bandwidth by the bucketload because you have all of your site's styles encapsulated in one document, instead of being repeated on every page. When a user visits a site, the browser will load the styles once and apply them to every page on the site.