|
|
Posted by Franklin on 08/14/07 03:42
On Tue 14 Aug 2007 04:10:33, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au>
wrote in alt.comp.freeware:
> In article <3fe7p4-n0q.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
> "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-08-14, dorayme wrote:
>> > In article <Xns998C1335C1DEFQ78XD91A@127.0.0.1>,
>> > Franklin <frank.says@no.spam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I agree. HTML is not hard at all.
>> >
>> > This would be more convincing if it was not being said by folks
>> > who's business is html. It would also be more convincing if it
>> > was not being merely said but demonstrated. And how can it be
>> > demonstrated easily?
>>
>> If you look at the HTML generated by such monstrosities as
>> FrontPage or other site builder software, one can be forgiven
>> for getting the impression that HTML is hard.
>>
>> If you look at a cleanly coded page, you can tell that it is
>> not hard (though there is a learning curve).
>
> No you can't. It is an illusion. You snipped the wrong point in
> quoting me.
>
> I am not disputing that poor practices and generators in particular
> do not help the education of people. In fact, the Andy D line on
> this has much to recommend it. But the very thing you are saying is
> flat wrong. You can look as hard as you like at a simple thing and
> think it is easy to make. And be wrong.
>
You are not wrong. As something similar, it has been observed that
an expert is someone who makes a difficult task look easy.
But your words do not always apply. I would say they do not apply
most of the time. Indeed I might go further and suggest they only
apply some of the time and, in thi socntext, only in a relatively
small minority of cases. In other words, if HTML looks easy then it
probably is easy.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|