- From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:12:02 +0000
- To: joseph@xtrememind.com
- Cc: W3C Validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
On 23 Jan 2008, at 09:19, Joseph Plazo wrote: > Yes, I'm quite aware of that. I love it for its WYSIWG features as > well as the fact I've been using FP since 1998. I did try to create > a few subdomains at http://www.xtrememind.com using the latest > incarnation, MS ExpressionWeb. Guess what? The validator at http:// > validator.w3.org/ points out an armada of errors. That's from a > 2007 product that didn't come cheap. Getting people to pay money for software of such quality is a demonstration of the effectiveness of the Microsoft marketing machine. > Dreamweaver churns out my pages with fewer glitches but this > software isn't as friendly. > > >Microsoft have a reputation for being unable to write software that > >generates standards compliant HTML. > > Hmmm... will there be any dramatic indexing problems on sites that > can't be fully w3c compliant? There could be, also rendering issues in browsers. When you ignore standards, you are entering the realm of error handling, and that is not all that well documented. You are also facing bloated markup and various other problems. > Thanks for the advice, unfortunately going back to text editors is > like me going back to Lotus 1-2-3 or MS DOS v5.0. It's not WYSIWYG. HTML is a language about describing meaning not appearance, WYSIWYG isn't an appropriate metaphor for it. I know a large number of professional web developers. I think a grand total of three of them use Dreamweaver - and they don't use the design view. (And no other editor with a so called WYSIWYG mode gets a look in). > Kindly point out graphically dazzling and wonderfully easy html > editors that churn out compliant html and I'll be forever a good > friend of your. They don't exist. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 10:12:29 UTC