Re: hand authoring web pages (was Re: Exploring new vocabularies for HTML)

Le 2 avr. 2008 à 18:06, Ben Boyle a écrit :
> Just to confuse the issue more

You do not make it more confusing, just more refined, which is good.

> I will add that a lot of the systems that generate HTML use  
> templates that were created by ... handcoding?

Going down your path, _everything_ is handcoded, aka there was at  
least one human who made a design decision in a piece of code, but I'm  
not sure we will prove anything doing that. Daniel summarized pretty  
well the issue, most of the people of this list are irrelevant as they  
are part of an extreme minority, though if we want categories:


* text editor (handcode everything)
* wysiwyg tools (Web editors and/or other tools such as mailers)
* CMS with editable templates
* CMS with non-editable templates
* automatic libraries (save as html, markup converters, …)

In each of these categories, there are multiple products, each of them  
with different consequences on statistics. A simple example, with  
blogs. When Userland Frontier came out, one of the first tool to  
publish a blog, it was  necessary to hack in the core of the libraries  
to hope to get valid code. A few years later, when MovableType, valid  
XHTML blog started to surface quickly. Why? Because the tool had been  
designed for generating a valid code by default.

Yes people might make things invalid. At the same time it has a lot  
more impact when you create a tool like CMS which generates valid code  
for thousand of people, more than a few hand coders.

Wikipedia for example is valid (XHTML 1.0 Transitional!) as far as I  
know
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FExistentialism&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

Though on March 26, 2008, Wikipedia had
	*10 millions of articles*
on September 2006
	*297 059 contributors*






-- 
Karl Dubost - W3C
http://www.w3.org/QA/
Be Strict To Be Cool

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 09:34:09 UTC