Re: New Topic WYSIWYG
by Virginia Blalock <skatefan(at)visions.simplenet.com>
|
Date: |
Sat, 05 Dec 1998 19:55:25 -0600 |
To: |
hwg-theory(at)hwg.org |
References: |
inficad oemcomputer |
|
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
At 04:52 PM 12/5/98 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 06:05 p.m. 12/05/98 -0600, Virginia Blalock wrote:
>>And no, this is not a "bash WYSIWYG" thing.
>
>Yet. :)
Well, I was wanting some "theories" so I hope nothing comes to blows<g>.
>>I would think that WYSIWYG editors would be more useful if they did the job
>>they do and generate conpliant code.
>
>Many of them were written at a time in which validity was not an
>issue, and when "Does it work on Netscape or Microsoft?" was a
>larger factor than "Does it validate?".
>
>That said, many of them _are_ becoming better at creating valid
>HTML; Hot Metal Pro 4.0 (and higher), for example, are very good
>at producing valid HTML.
Don't some of these editors also use tags that only they can read(or their
corresponding browser of choice)? I was thinking that perhaps marketplace
dynamics(like MS and Netscape not supporting all tags,etc) might be part of
this as well.
Virginia's Visions
http://visions.simplenet.com
HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmasters @ IWA