- From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:31:02 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
Preston L. Bannister wrote: > > As a practical matter, I would point folks of that sort at OpenOffice > (which has a pretty decent save-to-HTML or PDF), Google Docs, or the > like. Hand coding HTML (especially tables) is incredibly tedious, and > not an efficient use of their time. (Incidentally, my long-ago > college degree is in Physics, not software.) If hand-coding HTML makes > little sense for non-software folk now, by the time any change to HTML > is widely adopted (likely several years from now), the need will be > even less. I *strongly* disagree with your assertion, and have been debating it ad-naseum in the <indent> vs. <blockquote> thread. Users should be able to hand-code HTML, period. It looks like this is another need for consensus among the group. I strongly believe that HTML should be able to be hand-coded and then have tools built. If it can be hand-coded then tools can certainly be created for HTML. If tools are instead *required* then the hand-coders fall by the wayside and we are stuck with lots of tools with incomplete functionality and inconsistent user interfaces as the only way to produce HTML, and that would be a giant step backward IMO. How about we can a consensus on this, event it goes against my view, for the principles? -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 07:31:23 UTC