RE: WYSIWYG . . . <update>

Ms. Block,

*pardon the lack of cropping (list) it's pertinent to maintaining context*
Please see below.

At 10:32 AM 3/23/99 -0800, you wrote:
>At 11:32 PM 3/22/99 -0500, Captain F.M. O'Lary wrote:
>>Well, so far two responses.
>>
>>1) Proved their original message was smoke and mirrors.
>
>Eh?
>
>>
>>"I use a combo of
>>Emacs and HoTMetaL Pro 5 with occas use of Homesite to develop my html.
>>Personally, I prefer HoTMetaL for various reasons, but in some ways
>>Dreamweaver (which I also use sometimes) works better."
>
>>
>>Uuuum, sorry. That isn't a WYSIWYG editor writing valid HTML Mam.
>
>This has nothing to do with valid html, it has to do with what tools I'm
>most comfortable with for what purpose. 
>
>I stand by my original assertion. 


The thread as well as the subsequent questions and answers addressed
SPECIFICALLY WYSIWUG editors and their ability to render valid HTML. Here,
please allow me to quote YOUR *original* reply message:

"Because they write *valid* and legal html without the end user needing to
know anything about html. They are also good for doing rapid-prototyping
and Dreamweaver is also helpful for writing dhtml.

It is trivial to go back and forth between these programs and the hand
editor of your choice. They won't mangle your source. They don't use
proprietary markup. etc."

Your later message stating:

">>"I use a combo of
>>Emacs and HoTMetaL Pro 5 with occas use of Homesite to develop my html.
>>Personally, I prefer HoTMetaL for various reasons, but in some ways
>>Dreamweaver (which I also use sometimes) works better."
"

makes it pretty clear that you DO NOT generate valid html using a WYSIWUG
editor.


>
>And if you have some code produced exclusively in Dreamweaver that wouldn't
>validate, I'd like to see the code and know what standard you were
>validating against.

I Will GLADLY pass along the URL to you provided the author who sent me the
URL in a private post agrees. I am reasonably sure he is reading this post.


>
>>
>>2) Provided 14 errors in one file (then I stopped counting). BTW - if you
>>are interested it was Dreamweaver.
>>
>>Any canned editors out there that write valid HTML? . . . NONE so far.
>
>How would you know? Your ignorance of what's out there suggests to me that
>you have no clue what you're talking about and don't care to take the time
>to find out.
>
>Kayla

There are at least a few folks out in list land reading this message and
shaking their heads right now wondering how I'm going to handle this - will
I go off, or will I smile?

Weeeeel, let's make it a smile in honor of Ryan and Gio.

Kayla, here are some resources and some IMPORTANT information for you:
http://www.hwg.org/resources (more than anyone could ever want to know
about document validation)

http://validator.w3.org    (Simply type in the exact url for any document
you want to check.)

<.A
HREF="http://ugweb.cs.ualberta.ca/~gerald/validate/?url=http://www.ruediger.
leon.k12.fl.us/default.html">Click HERE to validate this page<./A>

Now this is interesting Kayla. You can copy and paste this last one right
into a document and after altering the (second) "URL" stuff, the viewer can
simply click on the link to automatically validate that individual document.

It really is cool - I know, I have SEVERAL HUNDRED (if not a few thousand!)
documents published on the web both commercially and educationally that
bear this link - and have had one ever since they were invented (the
parsers that check the documents).

Have a really nice evening Kayla.
Fuzzy

__________________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
(yes, one of the now infamous: "O'Lary Boys")
webmaster(at)canopy.net
sysop(at)mail.ruediger.leon.k12.fl.us
Member of the HTML Writers Guild and 
International Webmasters Association
------------------------------------------------------------------

HWG: hwg-software mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA