I think coding in plain HTML is easier than the Dreamweaver and
Frontpage vendors claim. If you're doing a sizable web site, it's true
that the first few pages you code might have been faster in
Dreamweaver, but as you get into it, you find that you're doing more
cut/paste/modify than new code and your speed increases. In the end,
plain HTML is faster than Dreamweaver/Frontpage because you don't have
to duke it out with program that doesn't always do things the way you
want them done.

It's pretty much the same as the reasons your coding in C or C++
rather than something like COBOL.



Regards,


Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com

GreyWyvern wrote:
<snip>
Yes, I pointed out that error once but the correction didn't make it in
for some strange reason. However, it's still correct that all other
_tags_ are useless, since &nbsp; is not a tag.

Exactly.

Yes, it's an advantage as far as it's a first step in cutting down code
bloat. A similar argument could probably be applied to
program-generated versus human-generated CSS code.

It is "correct", at least if the (X)HTML flavour specified in the
DOCTYPE declaration has "Transitional" in its name.

It is "acceptable", at least as far as all validators and web browsers
I've seen are concerned.

Whether it's the approach recommended by the authorities is another matter.

Good point.

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.

Fleeing from the madness of the Loughborough University, UK jungle
Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...authoring.html
and said:

[f'up rearranged]

I cannot recommend that the authorities are approached except with extreme
caution and an armed escort.

--
William Tasso

Save the drama
for your Mama.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:37:37 -0500, GreyWyvern <spam@greywyvern.com>
posted something that included:

What specification are you talking about? It does NOT say that in the
current HTML/4.01 specification, nor in any prior specification for
HTML.

Some browsers will collapse a series of multiple <br> and <p> tags
into a single <p> tag, and a series of multiple <br> tags into a
single <br> tag. Others will not. The HTML specification does not
specify which is the correct behavior.

If you interpret the <br> tag as meaning "no more on this line" and
the <p> tag as meaning "no more on this line or a certain amount of
vertical space below this line", then collapsing the tags makes sense.
If you interpret the <br> tag as meaning "move to the next line", and
the <p> tag as meaning "move down a bit and then move to the next
line", then producing greater vertical space due to the repetition
doesn't.

And since the HTML specification doesn't say which is the proper
interpretation, browser writers are free to use either interpretation.
The </p> tag is ignored in HTML. The effect of attributes to a <p> tag
last until the tag of that level.




--
If we're losing 40-130 species a day,
How come nobody can itemize them?
And why can't fruitflies be one of them?

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

Au contraire:

"We discourage authors from using empty P elements. User agents should
ignore empty P elements."
- http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.3.1

Unfortunately, the specifications are only useful if they get read.

<br> tags are outside the scope of this discussion. The spec, however, is
quite clear about empty <p> elements. See above.

These tags are, and should always be, interpreted as defined within the
specifications. The <p></p> element defines the beginning and end of a
paragraph, without implying visual styling of any kind. If someone
depends upon this tag to "move down a bit and then move to the next line"
they are setting themselves up for a fall if and when a UA decides to
implement their default paragraph styling in another way.

This is simply untrue. Why are you perpetuating this misconception?

I don't know what you mean by this, perhaps you could clarify.

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

Paul Ding wrote in
<ko3gs1917a7vpptlcrb70a6v98jujomri8@4ax.com>

<snip>

....you'll probably be making a bit of a mistake.


--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:21:41 -0500, GreyWyvern <spam@greywyvern.com>
wrote:

On a .info domain ?

Chances are it's quite a recent page. Which is even worse.

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:09:51 +0000, Andy Dingley wrote:

How do you know it's not a 1997 product that's been moved to an .info
site?


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
Details: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 04:54:14 -0800, Blinky the Shark
<no.spam@box.invalid> posted something that included:

The Wayback Machine is your friend.

http://web.archive.org/web/199904220...s/wysiwyg.html

However, although the page is old, Dan Tobias is still right to keep
the page up. HTML editors are still terrible, are still doing much of
the same crap, and my prediction is that they will still be bad in
2025.





--
If we're losing 40-130 species a day,
How come nobody can itemize them?
And why can't fruitflies be one of them?

Warren Warden wrote:
I agree, Dreamweaver is just simpler and more user friendly. Besides,
Front page ads alot of unnecessary tags.

I think after years of working.. I somehow decided to keep using Visual
Interdev '98 , I usually type out most of the code. I know its the long
way, but I have way more control.

I just got used to Interdev's color scheme for the code... I find it
long to apply the same on other software, although, If I had to switch,
I would definately choose Dremweaver.

anyone else with me on this?

Guil.
http://www.partsearch.us/Electronic_Part_index/X/1.html