Re: A fuzzy OPINION<Brick and Broom>

At 04:10 PM 2/20/01 +0100, Gregor Pirnaver wrote:
>On Tuesday 20 February 2001 01:37 Captain F.M. O'Lary wrote:
>> What am I missing?
>
>"WYSIWYG" editors and stylistic obsessions.

Aaah. Ok. I have no problem with either item.

I have met my goal in this thread.

It has been established that the only problem with using real live valid
code is that it doesn't allow for use of tools that are known industry wide
to write proprietary markup, which is (generally speaking) a very bad thing
to start with, AND it does not allow for those with stylistic obsessions to
work unrestrained.

Say, speaking of stylized obsession . . . 

Say this person wanted to create a stylized canvas using textured strokes
like those found if you were to paint with a broom instead of a brush. But
all the had was a brick so they pained with it. Now the painting doesn't
look like it was painted with a broom, it looks like it was painted with a
brick.

Does the artist now go off fussing about the canvas being unaccommodating?

Probably not if they still have a living brain cell.

This analogy works, I'm afraid to report.

If that stylistically obsessed person chooses to use tools that are not
widely supported, when the tools DO exist me meet their goals, does it make
sense for them to fuss about a new canvas that doesn't support the tool
they used to paint with?

Exchange the words "code" with "tools" and "browser" with "canvas" and I'm
afraid the argument that using this stuff is any kind of good idea doesn't
hold much water in my OPINION.

Are my three remaining brain cells out to lunch, or does this make sense to
someone else too?

Fuzzy.
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
It's a biiiig mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize that you
are in a hurry.
------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA