Posted by Neredbojias on 04/30/06 02:15

To further the education of mankind, "Bill" <no@no.com> vouchsafed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>> So why use a WYSIWYG editor which definitely has inferior html
>> rendering capabilities and most likely even inferior text-editing
>> capabilities?
>
> If, like my self, you do very little HTML work an editor that does not
> require you to remember or look up all of the HTML syntax can save a
> lot of time. For someone who is fluent a text editory may be a better
> solution. To each his/her own. :)

Hmm, yes. I've heard that before, but it is a fallacy. I understand
that not everybody needs or wants to learn html to a degree proficient
enough to use it, but your confidence in these type editors presumes
that you expect them to produce adequate markup in general. They don't,
so how will having an error-filled page save you time? The real way to
save time is to learn at least the basics of html which, btw, isn't
exactly rocket science. I realize the casual programmer may not
remember every bit of syntax required, but many non-WYSIWYG editors have
tabs or clipboards with various information about tags, elements, and
their uses.

I'm not trying to start of flamewar here or show any disrespect, but I
sincerely believe all WYSIWYGs are parasitic to the cause of making a
functional, robust, desirable page.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

[Back to original message]