|
|
Posted by Els on 06/14/05 16:47
Simon wrote:
> Sorry, I did not mean good as good to look at, but rather that it followed
> the rules and was likely to work as expected on a well behaved browser.
Unfortunately, the majority of visitors uses a not so well behaved
browser. Also, validating, following the rules, still doesn't mean a
good web site, even in Opera or Firefox.
>>> So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?
>>
>> I reckon it should.
>> And if a designer can't make their dreamweaver code valid, they don't
>> know how to use the program correctly? There is of course a difference
>> between someone who allows certain 'errors' to exist, and someone who
>> simply doesn't /know/ how to make a validating site. Hasn't got
>> anything to do with dreamweaver afaik.
>
> I don't know dreamweaver myself, I just thought it was one of those editor
> that was not very flexible.
> Unless you edit the templates directly.
I don't use Dreamweaver myself either, but I've been told Dreamweaver
has settings, which I think means it can be as flexible as any editor.
If the designer blames Dreamweaver's supposed inflexibility for lack
of validation, s/he shouldn't be using Dreamweaver.
Reminds me of myself when I was 6 years old, learning to write. I had
to write an 'n', and the second leg needed to have a nice round edge
at the bottom. I couldn't do it, the edge didn't want to be round. I
blamed the pen. ;-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: David Bowie - Suffragette City
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|