Re: Better than Dreamweaver

by Moe Rubenzahl <moe(at)maxim-ic.com>

 Date:  Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:45:19 -0800
 To:  "Captain F.M. O'Lary" <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net>,
Lynn Grillo <lgrillo(at)amenco.com>,
<hwg-software(at)mail.hwg.org>,
<collinlim(at)hotmail.com>
 References:  amenco amenco2
  todo: View Thread, Original
>Neither of these applications could turn out a valid HTML file on a bet.

I can't speak for GoLive (and in fact, the bloated code GoLive 3 or 
4.x produced was one of the reasons I rejected it) but at least 
Dreamweaver can. We use it every day. We do some manual cleanup on 
some pages, some of the time, and we tolerate some imperfections at 
times, but for the most part, it produces pages that work very well 
in a wide range of browsers and platforms and mostly pass HTML 
checking.

We make fairly basic pages, no layers, little Javascript, no 
rollovers, etc. The list of layout features we do not use is long. 
Used judiciously, Dreamweaver is a very useful tool and gives my 
designers greater productivity.

__________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Better than Dreamweaver
Author: Captain F.M. O'Lary
Date: 1/10/01 2:18 PM -0500

>At 10:14 AM 1/10/01 -0800, Moe Rubenzahl wrote:
>Your question implies that you don't regard Dreamweaver as
>>high-end or professional and I think that's a mistaken notion. Both
>  >these products are on a par in that respect and both are used by
>>plenty of high-end sites.
>
>Please, clarify what you mean by "High End" and "Professional".
>
>Neither of these applications could turn out a valid HTML file on a bet. If
>High End does not mean stable, predictable, reliable pages - which it
>obviously does not - what does it mean?
>
>Not trying to be argumentative, just seeking clarification.
>Fuzzy.

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