W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2008

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

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 21:15:44 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0804020415l3c39f1eer4bc6ee33208c19b4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
I guess my point is that many people get down to the level of HTML and
that dealing with HTML, authoring, and "handcoding" do not mean the
same thing.

If you're using some other tool, like a WYSIWYG editor, blogging
software, or even mediawiki markup, you won't have to be deal with
HTML. But the people who built that software, the part that outputs
the HTML, must have at some point ...

What else is HTML for? It just defines documents (DOM). There are
producer and consumer roles. Humans (authors) and computers
(software/agents) can take either role. And we're producing the
spec/recommendation/API that those producers and consumers will use.

I agree we have a bias, but isn't our bias related to understanding
the HTML producer and consumer roles? We're not here to progress
issues around "people/tools that build web pages/sites", we're here to
address "people/tools that use HTML".

(though it does appear that HTML authoring tool vendors are not well
represented in this WG... or are they just quiet?)



On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
>  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 11:16:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:54 UTC