|
|
Posted by dorayme on 08/14/07 04:06
In article <Xns998C2FF1979CCQ78XD91A@127.0.0.1>,
Franklin <frank.says@no.spam.com> wrote:
> > 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.
Keep going! Soon, I will be wrong all of the time and in every
single respect. <g>
It is no good just saying these things. You agree with the
general argument that simple made-things are not ipso facto
simple to make. As for the rest, what are we to do to test your
claim?
My claim is backed up by this: if you come across a simple and
elegant little bit of html that expresses a good looking and
useful page, you can almost bet your house that it is done by
someone who has quite a clue and got there by some good hard work
over time.
In any case, it is a highly artifical dispute unless we bring css
into the picture. And once again, what I am saying is multiplied
by an order or two of magnitude in truth then.
You can get away with thinking what you and others are thinking
because you do a lot of background abstracting from realities.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|