On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Ziya Oz wrote:
> Absolutely. Look at all the crappy code generated by non-visuals tools, and
> not just on the web but in general. Again, I'm not sure your equating
> quality output with non-visualness is warranted.
Well it's a bit of a theoretical chicken & the egg at this point.
My counter argument might be thus:
"Perhaps if we had not been given the visual tools,
and therefore hand-coding was the norm
people would have learned better
but they didn't feel they had to
because the visual tools where out there."
Then again, part of the blame rest squarely on the folks @ Netscape and IE
who decided to "enhance" the set of tags before there was a standard and
then refused to spend time cleaning up the mess afterwards.
Yes "refused" -- don't tell me that M$ could not have a 100% compliant
browser 4 years after CSS came down if they had put their mind to it. It
hasn't been a priority for them, and they don't have to care, so they
haven't. Netscape has done a pretty good job with 1/100000000th of the
financial resources of Microsoft.
I'd better stop before we start bashing MS.... (I mean if you thought
pounding on visual HTML coders was too easy....)
Timothy J. Luoma ~ http://www.tntluoma.com ~ [EMAIL-REMOVED]
Amateur Webdesigner Extraordinaire
Favorite pasttime: Finding and Reporting obscure typos in webpages
"Good web designers are frequently validated"
Replies to the list preferred unless I've wandered too far OT :-)