W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > February 2002

Re: html editors

From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 22:24:31 +0000 (GMT)
To: Damon Vaudrey <damon@citinews.net>
cc: www-validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.43.0202062212052.719-100000@phaestos.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Damon Vaudrey wrote:

> For those of us who don't know html in detail (which would be the
> overwhelming majority), we rely on editors such as Microsoft FrontPage,

Frontpage is not an editor. That's an insult to editors.

> Macromedia Dreamweaver etc. etc. to do all the work for us. Therefore, I was
> shocked to run a check of my site on your service, and see many, many
> 'errors',  which that leads to the 'Sorry, this document does not validate
> as HTML 4.01 Transitional' message at the end.
>
> Does this mean that all these editors are making the code incorrectly?

Yes; many knowledgeable people have grumbled about the poor output of
such editors, and only recently have the editors begun to improve.
(The Microsoft html output has always been particularly polluted. Not
as bad as saving as html in Word, but...)


> As this is a little disturbing.
>
> I might add however, that my site appears to view correctly wherever I have
> tested it

on how many different browsers? on how many platforms?

> - which leads me to think that your site is just catering for the
> elitist, and is not crucial for a site to look fine to the rest of the
> world...?

and you are sure of that?

L.

>
> Thanks
>
> Damon Vaudrey
> Director - CitiNews
> www.citinews.net
>
>

<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 17:25:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:00 GMT