|
|
Posted by Franklin on 08/14/07 00:53
On Mon 13 Aug 2007 09:54:07, Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com>
wrote in alt.comp.freeware:
> On 12 Aug, 20:44, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>> So you think going around usenet trashing the program because of a
>> disagreement over the definition of a term is justified when it is
>> an excellent program?
>
> Definitely! -- although it's _not_ an excellent program.
>
> My own beef isn't with the CSE program, it's with AW's mis-selling
> of it, and with this whole notion of "HTML is hard". That's an
> attitude fostered by the sellers of poor tools, mainly wysiwyg
> tools, who need to do this to encourage sales of their products.
I agree. HTML is not hard at all. After all it's just a simple, if
inelegant, markup language. Not so very far removed from the old GML
used for text layout in the 1980s.
> If beginners instead began by being told "HTML is easy, here's the
> basics in 5 minutes" they'd lose their fear of it and could learn
> the more complicated aspects gradutally.
>
> Read the first chapter of Lie & Bos' Cascading Style Sheets book.
> Although it's nominally a CSS book, that first chapter is one of
> the best introductions to the real _intention_ of HTML around.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|