- From: Tina Marie Holmboe <tina@elfi.elfi.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:34:14 +0100
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>, "'Ben Canning'" <bencan@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:57:27PM -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote: > to the issues caused by posting invalid html. Yes, browsers are suppose to > recover from these types of errors, but it is quite amateurish for an author > to rely on this. It is pretty unexcusable for an automated tool to > facilitate faults! We are quite intolerant of syntax errors in C and even > PDF and Word documents. Why is HTML an exception to this rule? Let me just AOL that :) > Personally, I think there is a huge untapped market for a "WYSIWYG" html > authoring package that doesn't pretend to do page layout. It would produce > only valid HTML 4.01 strict. If a user wanted fonts, they would have to do > this via style sheets. There would be no "indent" button (or it would be > tied to CSS). Clicking the large "B" button would produce <em> and not <b>. Ah ... here I must disagree. The 'B' in classic word processors indicate bold - and definetly not the logical construct of the EM - emphasis. I still think that an object-based web construction tool (I do not wish to even use the word 'WYSIWYG') in where one set 'properties' on 'objects', and a section of bold text would be considered an object would be the way to go Ah ... here I must disagree. The 'B' in classic word processors indicate bold - and definetly not the logical construct of the EM - emphasis. I still think that an object-based web construction tool (I do not wish to even use the word 'WYSIWYG') in where one set 'properties' on 'objects', and a section of bold text would be considered an object would be the way to go.. But apart from that I agree with you. -- - Tina
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2001 16:34:31 UTC