On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 17:35, Phil Payne wrote:
> I have to say this, though some won't like hearing it:
> >
> > + compose your HTML by hand
> > + start with static content (no scripts at first)
> > + construct your scripts (active content) by hand
> >
> > Machine-generated HTML is a horrible mess
Speak for yourself. Machine generated html depends on the quality of the
tools. If your tools suck so be it. There are also tools for taking
sucky html and unsuckifying it (htmltidy is a great example)
> > HTML is just too easy to do. It takes a day to learn,
> > and *no* special training. Sure, there will need to be practice
HTML takes a day to think you learned. When your pages pass the
validator.w3.org site and the bobby accessibility test set then maybe
you have learned. As it is your average "Im an eleet notepad web
page writer" can't write pages that validate and wouldn't have a clue
what
<b>Hi</> there <>!</>
actually did, or if it was valid html
> .
> > I strongly recommend AGAINST most "authoring tools".
> Amen to all that - and the bits I've snipped
Most authoring tools are bad, a lot of them don't deal
with semantic markup but pretend the web is a glorified
word processor. However you should also be wary of the
trade offs. Easy to use tools let more people create
content. In addition content management systems and tools
like Wiki can enable a lot of content creation in a company by
people who will never learn html or cease to be scared of
notepad.
Alan
