RE: html and dreamweaver

Referring to Dreamweaver not being W3C compliant (per below email). Does
that include all versions (including 4.x).

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Hedges []
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 5:07 PM
To: Philip TAYLOR;
Subject: Re: html and dreamweaver

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip TAYLOR" <P.Taylor@Rhbnc.Ac.Uk>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: html and dreamweaver

> I have used Dreamweaver (it is being adopted as a standard here)
> and although it generates /reasonable/ HTML, it is in no sense W3C-
> standards-aware.  For a start, there is no support for DTDs; a page as
> generated by unmodified DW has no DOCTYPE directive, and although
> it will carry forward a DOCTYPE directive from a modified template,
> it does so with no regard to the syntactic implications of that directive.
> When in- and outdenting sections of material, it can generate
> /really/ bad code.  The best HTML editor I have ever used (in
> the sense that "good" -> "capable of being validated without
> error" is HoTMetaL PRO, but even that editor is by no means perfect :
> as standard it used an internal (SoftQuad-specific) DTD which is
> not accessible; like DW, it will also carry forward a W3C DOCTYPE from
> a modified template, but unlike DW it also pays attention to the syntactic
> implications of that DOCTYPE.  /However/, if it does not recognise the
> DOCTYPE (as was the case for some time if an HTML 4.01 DOCTYPE directive
> was used), then it reverts to its least stringent DTD (probably its
> own internal SQ DTD), yet issues no warning to tell you that the
> DOCTYPE is being ignored.  And whilst, in general, it prevents you
> from generating bad HTML whilst typing, it appears to turn all error-
> checking off when pasting in material, as a result of which a page can
> end up so badly corrupted that even its internal validator/fixed doesn't
> know what to do; at this point, there is no option but to plunge into
> the raw HTML and fix it by hand.  DW is good, if by "good" you mean
> "can generate clever effects in a non-browser-specific way", and its
> internal library of JavaScript is pretty robust; but it can generate
> really bad code, and cannot be used naively if W3C-compliance of
> the resulting pages is a formal requirement.
> Philip Taylor, RHBNC.
> --------
> wrote:
> >
> > To begin, I must say that I have not used dreamweaver, so what I say may
> > or may not apply to that program.
> >
> > The main problem with using wysiwyg html-editors is that they (for the
> > most part) do not correctly follow w3 standards. For example, they use
> > inordinate numper of paragraph tags and non-breaking spaces to achieve
> > formatting. Also, they tend to use deprecated tags, such as <center> and
> > <font>, instead of styles. If an html-editor could be developed that
> > correctly followed w3 standards, then there would be no problem.
> >
> > > Marcelo Perrone, at 17:28 -0300 on Wed, 6 Dec 2000, wrote:
> > >
> > >  What do you guys think about that? Is there any w3 issue on
> > >   not-hand-coding-html?
> > >
> > > This is totally off the top of my head, but I would think that the W3
> > > would actually recommend using a good HTML editor, as a good editor
> > will
> > > help the user generate valid HTML, and help the user choose the
> > > appropriate elements to semanticize some data.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Frank Tobin 

I have to say the best editor anyone could use to write HTML is either
notepad or wordpad. Editors are ok, but why put yourself through the bother
of learning how to use an editor in the first place?

Received on Monday, 11 December 2000 12:49:50 UTC