RE: WYSIWYG . . . <update>

How does my saying that I use a combination of tools prove that the wysiwyg
tools in question don't produce valid html? I fail to understand your logic
here.

Further, there are various levels of validation available which you don't
make clear in your post. You can validate against any number of DTD's. I'm
asking you to state what you are validating against.

What DTD do you write for? Do you ever use tags which have not been
approved by w3c? Are you satisfied with using less rigorous validators than
w3c's? Without the answers to these questions, we are talking apples and
oranges.

I validate against html 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 using both CSE and an in-house
copy of DrHTML. I have yet to see any problems generated by the software in
question. But since you already have this all figured out, I don't suppose
my saying this means anything to you.  :)

I would suggest that you stick to the tools you know. And stop bothering
the rest of us with questions that you already have figured out.

Kayla Block

At 07:52 PM 3/23/99 -0500, Captain F.M. O'Lary wrote:
>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
>------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
Kayla Block                            650.526.6103
Engineer                                kblock(at)placeware.com
                                             PlaceWare, the Web
Conferencing Company
============================================================

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