Re: New Topic WYSIWYG

>From: Virginia Blalock <skatefan(at)visions.simplenet.com>
>Subject: New Topic WYSIWYG
>
>And no, this is not a "bash WYSIWYG" thing.
>
>I have always wondered why the programmers of these editors make the
>editors come out with crappy code. I would imagine that they know that some
>of the code the editor generates is non HTML compliant.
>
>I would think that WYSIWYG editors would be more useful if they did the job
>they do and generate conpliant code.


HTML is extremely flexible. A computer program isn't. Speaking as a
programmer who's had a go-round or two with this ... the problem isn't so
much that the programs put out nasty HTML code as that it's darn hard to
create a program that creates good, solid, optimized code of *any* kind. The
programmers are trying to create editors useful to everyone, which means the
program will most likely use canned subroutines and program logic designed
to make even the rawest newbie's pages look okay. If it creates overblown
code in the process, well, that's the price we have to pay. (A little brand
typing doesn't hurt, of course ... if Netscape's editor makes pages which
look their best in Netscape, so much the better for the home team.)

--C.

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