Re: Macromedia and Allaire to merge

>>Just opinions. But if I were you, I would go for Dreamweaver.
>
>Oh! Moe!
>
>Why?
>
>_Strictly_ speaking of the ability of the software to turn out real live
>valid HTML, I have to disagree STRONGLY. Respectfully, I know you're not a
>dummy, but strongly! ...

Yes, I should explain; and back-pedal some. The original questioner's 
concern was about adopting something Macromedia might drop at some 
point and I was thinking that -if- they dropped anything, Dreamweaver 
was less likely. But in retrospect, my advice was overly limited.

First: We don't know if either will be dropped and they are 
dissimilar enough that I think it is likely both will remain.

Second: They are so different, it would be best to try both and see 
what you like. Coders tend to favor HomeSite; designers tend toward 
DreamWeaver.

Third: I have seen HomeSite but not used it. So I really should not 
have suggested one over the other.

HOWEVER: I have to disagree regarding the "ability of the software to 
turn out real live valid HTML." DW code is imperfect but if you avoid 
layers and other fancy constructs, DW code is solid and works 
consistently in all browsers and platforms back to Netscape Navigator 
3 and Microsoft Internet Explorer 4, at least. Even then, we 
hand-tweak some of our DW code. (Most annoying habit: It loves to 
split FONT tags into valid, but inefficient, redundant tags.)

No WYSIWYG program will please a strict HTML-validator but in our 
applications, DW is lots faster than pounding out HTML and its code 
works very well.

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