- From: Patrick Taylor <patrick@healtheconomics.org>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:01:22 -0300
- To: Dylan Smith <qstage@cox.net>
- Cc: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>, <public-html@w3.org>
On 28-Apr-07, at 4:20 PM, Dylan Smith wrote: > on 4/28/07 12:31 AM, Mike Schinkel at w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com > wrote: > >> >> 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. > > Users _must_ be able to hand-code, period. Definitely agree. Hand-coding is the gold-standard for HTML. I'd go so far as to say that the more complex the document, the less appropriate machine-generated HTML becomes. What is output from tools like OpenOffice may be okay for most people's purposes but it's generally not good HTML. OpenOffice (or Dreamweaver or iWeb) can't read my intent. What you see is what you're stuck with. It's also not like we are stuck with Textpad these days. Handcoding with tools like TextMate is hardly a drudge-job.
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 22:01:33 UTC