Deprecated HTML Still Taught in High Schools

Web design and development education standardization is one of the things I’d be pushing for in my Web standards advocacy. Education starts in the school. And, if teachers do not know what to teach their students, no advancement would ever happen.

I was asked for help by my good friend to assist her nephew on his Web page design project. I first asked him what lessons they have discussed in school, so I could match the level of what the teacher taught to what we would be doing. As usual, it included <html>, <head>, and <body> elements, as well as the tables, anchors, images and lists. I was just disappointed when he said they still use <font> tags for changing the size and color of text, and use the <body> attributes background and bgcolor for placing background images and color on the page.

Of course, as a standardista, I hated the fact that I am forced to use deprecated elements and attributes on Web pages. So, I decided to make a statement on this blog hoping to be heard (or read) by computer, web design, and web development teachers in any level of education.

Please, please update yourself on what you know and teach about Web design. HTML 3.2, which you are teaching your depolama students, has been replaced by HTML 4.01 almost 9 years ago. That, in turn, has evden eve nakliyat been reformulated to become XHTML 1.0 in 2000. You should also know that HTML should only be used for structure and CSS be used as its presentational layer.

Web design and development education standardization is one of the things I’d be pushing for in my Web standards advocacy. Education starts in the school. And, if teachers do not know what to teach their students, no advancement would ever happen. In my humble opinion, this principle of educational advancement doesn’t only apply in Web education.

We are still in the process of talking about forming a formal Web standards organization in the Philippines. If you feel the same way as I do in this blog entry, and love to fight for Web standards compliance, join us in our discussions to help save the Web and its users—for interoperability, accessibility, validity, and semantics.

Are you one of them?

In the case of the article’s author? No. She won’t even pass Grade 6!

I’ve read a front-page article about pupil illiteracy in the Philippines from the August 17 edition of The Philippine Star — a daily newspaper in nationwide circulation. The article, entitled Only 6 of 100 Grade 6 pupils ready for high school — study, showed statistics of disappointing value. But, I am not going to talk about it here.

Only 6 of 100 Grade 6 pupils ready for high school—study I guess, you’ll say, But, why did you start with that topic? Oh, I have a reason. I think Sandy Araneta, the author of the article, is one of those “pupils” not ready for high school! She said in her first sentence, Fewer than one percent of Filipino students are high school and college material… Fewer than one percent? I thought you’ve just said 6 of 100 in the title? Six of 100 is 6%. And, all of the other numbers you mentioned inside the article referring to the Grade 6 pupils stated 0.6 percent, or only six out of every 1,000!

Please, please, try to make it right everytime. I would also like to mention your editors though I do not know who they are. Yes, we make mistakes, but (all of) you are writing in a nationwide newspaper and your Math and proofing aren’t even correct! I think that’s one evidence to really say illiteracy is widespread in the country.

To the writer and editors from The Philippine Star: I’m sorry for the harsh comparisons and descriptions written here. I admit I was a little bit exaggerating.

Note: Image scanned without permission from August 17 edition of The Philippine Star.

Note: The incident was reported by email to the webmaster of philstar.com. In response to that, the webmaster told me that the editors were informed about the error they have committed.