Fleeing from the madness of the Road Runner High Speed Online
http://www.rr.com jungle
Samman <sam@psfripitdev.com> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...authoring.html
and said:

well - yes, that's the point isn't it.

Ahh yes - forgot the &nbsp; - apologies, above was from memory.

markup looks just fine and dandy[1] - goes to show that power-tools make
stuff quicker, not necessarily better[2]. Not sure where you're posting
from, but in AWW we see a lot of empty tables when reviewing
DW/FP/whatever generated pages

Likewise - live long and prosper.

[1] usual caveats about correct use of table markup applies
[2] the number of people that can't drill a straight hole is truly
astonishing
--
William Tasso

Save the drama
for your Mama.

William Tasso wrote:

I've never seen a width applied to a <tr>.

Well sure, if the user tells it to create a table and then doesn't
populate it with anything. Seems to me the tool has done exactly what it
was told to do, yes?

Indeed.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

================================================== ====
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
================================================== ====

"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
newsp.s28nmmmim9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com...
I failed to see any "junk"... Isn't that the point?



I can see where this may be going.


A cave in the Appalacian Mtns. , on Mars, in Ted Kennedy's car going over a
bridge.
????

.... and may the Force be with you :-/

"Have any of you nerds actually SEEN a vagina? If you had a police line-up
with a vigina, a donut, and a mop, would you be able to pick out the vagina?
Cause the minute you can, you're gonna throw that Stormtrooper cookie jar
right out the window!" - Bobcat Goldthwait

MajorSetback@excite.com wrote:
I hear that FP is joining NetObjects Fusion in the league of worst web
page editors ever made. Some of the newer versions do some things that
exceed all stupidity, e.g. in some circums it'll convert a block of text
into an ugly image for no reason.

http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html

Hand-coding is the way to go.

But since you're a programmer - maybe you could write your own HTML
editor? Perhaps a syntax-directed editor, a WYSIWYM or something for a
change.

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

And lo, Stewart Gordon didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...uthoring.html:

I took a little time to read that article and it is a *terrible* example
to foist on newbies who want to abandon WYSIWYG obsfucation. It was
written in 1997, and is now horribly out of date. It actually recommends
replacing this bit of WYSIWYG code:

<CENTER><DIV ALIGN=CENTER><P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT
FACE="Arial,Helvetica"><FONT SIZE="+1"><FONT
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P></DIV></CENTER>

.... with this "huge" improvement:

<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT FACE="Arial,Helvetica" SIZE="+1"
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></P>

For heaven sakes, you shouldn't be inserting empty <p> tags for blank
space in the *first place*! The proper "replacement" would be to remove
the code altogether and apply a greater CSS margin to the sibling elements.

It certainly is, but don't follow any advice from that article, except the
part where it says to stop using the WYSIWYG editor.

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#sear - Orca Search: Full-featured spider
and site-search engine

GreyWyvern wrote:
Actually, it's aimed at people who want to be responsible WYSIWYDG
editor owners. Though it is also of use to people who want to throw
them away.

Maybe one or two bits of that page are a little out of date, but I don't
see how the page as a whole is.

Yes, but the point of that piece was to illustrate the absent-mindedness
of these editors. It perhaps isn't surprising that some naive editors
will assume you really did want a paragraph containing a single hard
space, but the bloatedness of what some programs do produce is silly.

So you think that, when somebody decides to switch to hand-coding,
he/she/it should just leave in all the mess that the old editor put there?

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

And lo, Stewart Gordon didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...uthoring.html:

*My* point is that the article *recommends* using the second given code
snippet above as a replacement for the WYSIWYG code. *Both* examples are
horribly bloated.

No. I think that if someone is going to switch from WYSIWYG to
hand-coding, they shouldn't start with WYSIWYG code and prune down from
there. Rather they should start with a blank text editor (and perhaps an
HTML/CSS reference guide or two) and work their way up.

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#sear - Orca Search: Full-featured spider
and site-search engine

GreyWyvern wrote:
No it doesn't. Read the sentence that introduces the second code
snippet again (assuming you ever read it at all), especially the first
two words of it.

<snip>
Assuming that, if they had made it look very "fancy" in the WYSIWYDG,
then they don't mind that the site'll look more basic until they've
learned the particular bits of CSS to achieve the desired level of
fanciness.

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

And lo, Stewart Gordon didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...uthoring.html:

Here, I will quote you the relevant part of the article with my reponses:

"This whole big mess of code [the WYSIWYG block] serves only to insert a
blank paragraph for vertical spacing, accomplishable via <P></P>. All the
other tags are useless."


According to the spec, empty <p></p> tags should be ignored completely.
This is error #1: *All* the tags listed are useless.


"They're added because the editors are so dumb that if you have stuff like
font settings enabled they insist on adding them even to blank spaces. The
editors are also pretty dumb about failing to collapse redundant tags.
Even if the various font changes above were actually needed to make sure
that blank space was rendered correctly, you could have done it with:

<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT FACE="Arial,Helvetica" SIZE="+1"
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></P>"


This is error #2. This is certainly not the furthest you could distil an
empty paragraph tag down to while including all of the formatting given
above. The correct replacement would be:

CSS:
p.empty {
text-align:center;
font:bold 110% Arial,Helvetica;
color:red;
}

HTML
<p>&nbsp;</p>

However, even this is spurious, since the entire section of code, both CSS
and HTML, is completely unnecessary. You may respond to this saying:
"Hey, it was only an example to collapse redundant tags, not a
recommendation as to what coders should actually use." Aha, well, I offer
you the next paragraph of the article:


"Note how the three different centering tags were reduced to an attribute
of the single paragraph tag, and the three different font settings were
made into attributes of one FONT tag. This produces a shorter, cleaner,
more logical piece of code, showing the advantages of coding by hand
instead of using some silly editor!"


So, with this confirmation, WYSIWYG'ers come away with the idea that the
use of the tags above is both correct and acceptable. This is not a good
thing.

"Fanciness" is overrated. Accessibility isn't.

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#sear - Orca Search: Full-featured spider
and site-search engine

And lo, GreyWyvern didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...uthoring.html:

Okay, okay. I got my own example wrong :P You know what I meant; just
add class="empty" to the <p> element.

Grey