- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:33:32 +0900
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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