Re: WYSIWYG . . . <update>

At 08:37 PM 3/23/99 -0500, Scott Bowling wrote:
>Kayla Block wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>Because you pretty much said so yourself, and he quoted the relavent
>bits. You also did not offer up an example page that was produced
>exclusively with a WYSIWYG tool that valididates. Kind of a "put up or
>shut up" kind of thing here. 

I work on web pages that are part of a product, not part of a web site. The
pages are not publically available. OTOH, I assure you that the pages I
create go through a more stringent QA process than most web sites go through.

The pages I write don't validate against W3C's validator. They validate
against the criteria that I require -- well-written HTML with proper
opening and closing tags and no illegal embedded markup. It is clean HTML
that will run against any 3.0 or higher Netscape or Internet Explorer. The
product I write for doesn't support any other browsers so they are not on
my list of things to care about.

If you require more stringent validation than what DrHTML or CSE gives you
and you want something on the level of weblint, you are correct -- wysiwyg
tools are not the right thing for you.

Anyway, I don't work for SoftQuad or Macromedia....so I could care less if
you are "sold" or not.

Both products are available as evaluation copies. Feel free to go download
them and see what you think. Both products are a far cry from FrontPage,
NetObjects, or any of the other wysiwyg programs.

Regards,
Kayla Block



============================================================
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