At 5:10 PM +0000 2/28/99, Claire McNab wrote:
> Hmm. Most auto-generated HTML is dire: you just have to look at how
> bad the output is from the available WYSIWYG web-editings tools to
> see gow bad, You know, the sort of "you don't need to know HTML!
> create a web page in 3 nanoseconds" stuff.
This discussion sounds familiar to me. It sounds the same as the
arguments made against compiled languages by assembly language people.
Yes, most auto-generated HTML is sub-optimal (to be generous).
My question is -- does it really matter? Adding 20% to a 2K text
message just doesn't bother me. Esthetically, it's unclean. From a
practical or technical standpoint, isn't this all just statistically
insiginificant? If people are worried about bandwidth usage, why
aren't they fighting things like usenet's binary distributions, where
you might actually make a ripple in the usage patterns of the net?
I just don't see that "dire" HTML makes that big a difference, for
the simple fact that users don't see bad HTML. They see the
re-rendered version of it. It seems like we're arguing that a recipe
is bad because the card it's typed on is stained.
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
