• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>,simonstl@s... (Simon St.Laurent)
• Subject: Re: limits of the generic
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:54:49 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200209272150.RAA00756@m...>
• References: <r01050300-1015-C8E93A58D25E11D685CC0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

At 05:38 PM 9/27/2002 -0400, John Cowan wrote:

>Does anybody *really* believe that Joe Website will be writing perfect
>XHTML 2.0 without tools?

Absolutely. Just as valid HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1, etc, are written without 
tools today*. Our company standards allow only enhanced editing features 
like color syntax highlighting and user-defined macros. No WYSIWYG, no 
"smart completion". IMO, more resources are expended fixing invalid "help" 
in the markup than are expended just writing it correctly the first time 
around. So we do.

*This doesn't mean tools such as http://validator.w3.org aren't used, we're 
talking about Authoring Tools (Dreamweaver, et al) here.

Ann

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • limits of the generic
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Previous by thread: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by thread: Re: limits of the generic
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread