- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:34:19 +0100
- To: public-colloquial-contrib@w3.org
On 16 September 2011 10:40, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote: > PHP, Ruby, Python etc are not content management systems. Along with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, they are languages in which technical folk build content management systems. And I think that's an important distinction. By and large, non-technical people do not author HTML. It seems that markup languages, in general, have failed to deliver on this front. From HTML to TeX, the conceptual jump needed to think about a document in terms of "invisible" mark-up is too much to ask. Which is why, in a response to the need for plain text editing, a cottage industry sprung up around languages like Markdown, which attempt to let you "draw" what you want to see on the page using crude ASCII transliterations. Which always seems to produce a grey area where such users want more from the simpler system? Making that leap is quite a challenge and I'd guess quite frustrating. > To get back to Sean's original question, as one of the few people in the world who edits HTML by hand, I check my work using DOM inspectors. Clicking about on the page, and inspecting a representation of DOM structure as needed. I cannot remember the last time I checked my work in any kind of validator, beyond the error/warning/inspection console provided to me by my favourite browser. > > Most of the developers I know and work with have a similar workflow. > > A survey would be interesting though! Yes, but would any results be significant? I'm wondering how a dom inspector achieves any sort of validation Noah? -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 12:34:48 UTC