Posted by TaliesinSoft on 02/16/07 17:08

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:46:48 -0600, Andy Dingley wrote (in article
<1171644407.746852.322600@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

> On 16 Feb, 15:51, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> But I made no comparison of "good / bad" between Freeway and Dreamweaver.
>
> Of course you did, as a straw man and a diversion.
>
> Freeway has valid HTML but poor use of CSS positioning. Rather than
> discussing the pixel-based absolute positioning of Freeway, you then
> diverted into Adobe's non-valid products. No-one else mentioned Adobe.

Earlier in this thread Jonathan A. Little stated in regards to Freeway....

Give them credit that unlike MS they actually use their software to built
their site!

That piqued my curiosity enough for me to see what Adobe did with their site.
There was no attempt at diversion.

As for Freeway using a pixel-based scheme for positioning, the intent, a good
one in my opinion, is to provide some assurance as to how the resulting site
will appear. I'm afraid I'm not much of a fan of so-called "liquid" layouts.
All one has to do is to go to such as the Softpress (the implementors of
Freeway) or Adobe sites and start enlarging the text and soon the layout
degenerates into a hodgepodge of misplaced parts. To me, and apparently there
is much disagreement here, the better solution is uniform magnification
and/or reduction of the entire page.

--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com

[Back to original message]