NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"

[David Segall]

In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
off-topic sub-thread and

Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently majority
opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
experience.

It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.

First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
the underlying encoding.

Second, I have not used Frontpage but I find Dreamweaver an excellent
tutor. I can use it to generate a web page and examine the output or,
more frequently, I can use its code completion and related
documentation to learn HTML. I can't imagine a better way of
"explaining" the C in CSS than the properties view in Dreamweaver.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
off-topic sub-thread and

Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently majority
opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
experience.

It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.

First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
the underlying encoding.

Yeah! Like I'd like to hire a carpenter that doesn't know carpentry to
built my house, or mechanic without training fix my car. If you think
knowing your field isn't important in web design then obviously you
haven't fixed one created by one of these "experts".

 

[Harlan Messinger]

In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
off-topic sub-thread and

Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently majority
opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
experience.

It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.

First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
the underlying encoding.

Microsoft Word documents are born in Microsoft Word, stored by Microsoft
Word, and displayed by Microsoft Word. When you do such-and-such in your
document, the result will display in Microsoft Word the way Microsoft
Word was designed to display it, which was closely orchestrated by
Microsoft to correspond to the kinds of edits you performed. If there's
something wrong with the way a document displays, the fix can be stated
completely in terms of your use of Microsoft Word without accessing any
internal representations. If that isn't so, then it's a bug in Word and
Microsoft is at fault.

A browser displays a document that was created using heaven knows what
application using heaven knows what menus and tools and instructions
sets and intermediary representations in memory and in storage. If
there's something wrong with the way a document displays, then unless
it's a matter of a browser bug with no work-around, the problem can only
be said to lie in the HTML, which is the only input the browser knows
about. The only way to troubleshoot and fix it is by reference to the
HTML. If you don't understand the HTML and don't know what it looks
like, you're out of luck. Saying, "well, that's what Dreamweaver
produced" or "there isn't any way to fix that in Dreamweaver" isn't a
valid excuse. The browser doesn't read Dreamweaver.

 

[Helpful person]

In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
off-topic sub-thread and

It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.

First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
the underlying encoding.

Microsoft Word documents are born in Microsoft Word, stored by Microsoft
Word, and displayed by Microsoft Word. When you do such-and-such in your
document, the result will display in Microsoft Word the way Microsoft
Word was designed to display it, which was closely orchestrated by
Microsoft to correspond to the kinds of edits you performed. If there's
something wrong with the way a document displays, the fix can be stated
completely in terms of your use of Microsoft Word without accessing any
internal representations. If that isn't so, then it's a bug in Word and
Microsoft is at fault.

A browser displays a document that was created using heaven knows what
application using heaven knows what menus and tools and instructions
sets and intermediary representations in memory and in storage. If
there's something wrong with the way a document displays, then unless
it's a matter of a browser bug with no work-around, the problem can only
be said to lie in the HTML, which is the only input the browser knows
about. The only way to troubleshoot and fix it is by reference to the
HTML. If you don't understand the HTML and don't know what it looks
like, you're out of luck. Saying, "well, that's what Dreamweaver
produced" or "there isn't any way to fix that in Dreamweaver" isn't a
valid excuse. The browser doesn't read Dreamweaver.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One only has to read a few of the threads in the FrontPage forum to
realize how futile it is to try and create a web site solely with a
third party program. Most of the questions relate to problems using
FrontPage instead of learning to understand HTML and CSS.

 

[dorayme]

David Segall wrote: ....

First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
the underlying encoding.

Yeah! Like I'd like to hire a carpenter that doesn't know carpentry to
built my house, or mechanic without training fix my car. If you think
knowing your field isn't important in web design then obviously you
haven't fixed one created by one of these "experts".

There are what are called scope tuners for pianos. That is, people who
tune pianos by means of an electronic instrument. They mostly do not
understand their field like real piano tuners and do not do as good a
job generally. The reasons are not hard to fathom.

 

[asdf]

First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
the underlying encoding.

Microsoft Word documents are born in Microsoft Word, stored by Microsoft
Word, and displayed by Microsoft Word. When you do such-and-such in your
document, the result will display in Microsoft Word the way Microsoft
Word was designed to display it, which was closely orchestrated by
Microsoft to correspond to the kinds of edits you performed. If there's
something wrong with the way a document displays, the fix can be stated
completely in terms of your use of Microsoft Word without accessing any
internal representations. If that isn't so, then it's a bug in Word and
Microsoft is at fault.

A browser displays a document that was created using heaven knows what
application using heaven knows what menus and tools and instructions
sets and intermediary representations in memory and in storage. If
there's something wrong with the way a document displays, then unless
it's a matter of a browser bug with no work-around, the problem can only
be said to lie in the HTML, which is the only input the browser knows
about. The only way to troubleshoot and fix it is by reference to the
HTML. If you don't understand the HTML and don't know what it looks
like, you're out of luck. Saying, "well, that's what Dreamweaver
produced" or "there isn't any way to fix that in Dreamweaver" isn't a
valid excuse. The browser doesn't read Dreamweaver.

I can create a "Microsoft Word" document in Sun StarOffice and send
it to someone who reads it using Kingsoft WPS Office. That doesn't
mean that I need to learn the internals of that format. Likewise, if
(note the "if") a tool exists that generates valid HTML, I don't need
to learn the internals of that format either.

....but one of the differences between word format and (X)HTML is that the
tools used to view (X)HTML, that is to say web browsers do not display the
same results, or do not display some pages correctly EVEN if the markup is
100% valid. You *still* need to tweak things by hand to accommodate the
gammut of web browser bugs and associated work-arounds.

The peekaboo bug in IE6 for instance that is the bane of the web developer's
life still needs to be tested for and fixed every time, even if the markup
is valid. Witness also the '3 pixel jog' bug. Ditto. I don't want to get
into a browser flame war over this either... all the browsers have their
strengths and weaknesses.

Simply using a tool that produces 100% valid markup is still not a solution.

While the web browser manufacturers continue to produce buggy rendering
engines, and while older browsers are still being used, markup by hand is
still the only solution, sadly.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

The peekaboo bug in IE6 for instance that is the bane of the web developer's
life still needs to be tested for and fixed every time, even if the markup
is valid. Witness also the '3 pixel jog' bug. Ditto. I don't want to get

Hey just to let you know, it ain't just IE6, 7 has its own set of
peekaboos that were not present in previous versions...When MS is not
busy fixing old bugs then they're busy creating new ones!

Here is one I discovered. If italic text, like EM touches a float--poof!
The rest of the page disappears. IE7 only, works fine in V5-6

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/l2340/ver2.php

My fix was to change the default style of EM to bold...

 

[dorayme]

dorayme wrote:

I must disagree vehemently. If you have no knowledge of nor play (and,
hence, need to tune) a stringed instrument, you have provided no way to
explain what you mean. I /think/ I know what you mean but, then, I've
been playing and tuning guitar since 1966.

Once upon a time I had a round chromatic pitch pipe (it's around here
somewhere). I would blow a concert A. I would tune the guitar's A
sting to that. Every other string would be tuned relative to that one
string.

But! Depending upon the guitar, one needed also to then play a chord
and make minute adjustments.

Aha! So you are not your average ignorant, clueless, lowest musical
tradesmen common denominator, the scope tuner I meant. (They charge less
too!) <g>

Now I have a number of different types of electronic tuners. I can tune
(very precisely) each string to its base harmonic and ensure that each
string is precisely what it should be.

And then? I strum a chord (or series of chords) and /listen/. Yeah,
yeah, my 58 1/2 year old ears may be not as acute as they were but I
/know/ what an open E, a barred F, an open G etc. should sound like.

So, the electronic tools are great ... if you know how to use them.

Perhaps that is what you were driving at?

Well, you described, after your intention to be *vehement*, a pussycat
opposition! You are like the DW user who *does* know wtf he is really
doing.

 

[dorayme]

Aha! So you are not your average ignorant, clueless, lowest musical
tradesmen common denominator, the scope tuner I meant. (They charge less
too!) <g>

And, maybe not so btw, the natural piano tuner is almost always faster,
more efficient than a scope tuner who has to fiddle about...

 

[Blinky the Shark]

In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a
really off-topic sub-thread and

Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used
to seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the
evidently majority opinion around here that using progs like
Dreamweaver and Frontpage just rob one of the valuable and
ultimately necessary learning experience.

It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.

First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web
page authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML.
They are entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the
way Microsoft Word encodes a document. If there is a program
that generates error-free web pages there is no reason why they
should have to learn the underlying encoding.

Second, I have not used Frontpage but I find Dreamweaver an
excellent tutor. I can use it to generate a web page and examine
the output or, more frequently, I can use its code completion
and related documentation to learn HTML. I can't imagine a
better way of "explaining" the C in CSS than the properties view
in Dreamweaver.

It seems to me like a logical extension of this line of thinking
would be: When someone comes into a/the group with a question,
and he has created his code with...uh...when he has let, let's say
Dreamweaver, create his code, the best way to help him would be to
advise him that he can learn what he needs to know by just working
on his issue more with, in this example, Dreamweaver. Because
that's the "better way" of learning, and he can further avoid
understanding the code that way.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
the underlying encoding.

Microsoft Word documents are born in Microsoft Word, stored by Microsoft
Word, and displayed by Microsoft Word. When you do such-and-such in your
document, the result will display in Microsoft Word the way Microsoft
Word was designed to display it, which was closely orchestrated by
Microsoft to correspond to the kinds of edits you performed. If there's
something wrong with the way a document displays, the fix can be stated
completely in terms of your use of Microsoft Word without accessing any
internal representations. If that isn't so, then it's a bug in Word and
Microsoft is at fault.

A browser displays a document that was created using heaven knows what
application using heaven knows what menus and tools and instructions
sets and intermediary representations in memory and in storage. If
there's something wrong with the way a document displays, then unless
it's a matter of a browser bug with no work-around, the problem can only
be said to lie in the HTML, which is the only input the browser knows
about. The only way to troubleshoot and fix it is by reference to the
HTML. If you don't understand the HTML and don't know what it looks
like, you're out of luck. Saying, "well, that's what Dreamweaver
produced" or "there isn't any way to fix that in Dreamweaver" isn't a
valid excuse. The browser doesn't read Dreamweaver.

I can create a "Microsoft Word" document in Sun StarOffice and send
it to someone who reads it using Kingsoft WPS Office. That doesn't
mean that I need to learn the internals of that format.

The Word format wasn't designed to be cross-application, and there isn't
any public standard or recommendation or specification for it to conform
to so it does whatever Microsoft says it does. Therefore, anyone who
creates a third-party app has to work real hard to get the app to
display documents exactly as they're meant to be displayed. If they
don't, there isn't *anything* you can do about it, right? You *can't* do
anything about the underlying code; if you do, Microsoft Word might not
even be able to open it. If your customer says, "These Word documents
you designed for me don't work in XYZ Office", the justified answer is,
"I can't be held responsible for that".

Try that with a customer who complains that your web pages don't work in
Firefox.

 

[Neredbojias]

In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
off-topic sub-thread and

It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.

Well, I see your point, but I still maintain my opinion. The previous
pro-learning replies to your message express my reasons better than I
probably could.

First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
the underlying encoding.

I think your analogy is not a good one because a word processor isn't
really like an html parser. Any particular WP defines the rules of its
operation while DW, Expression, etc., do not make the rules of html.
Furthermore, no such programs are ever likely to be perfect.

Second, I have not used Frontpage but I find Dreamweaver an excellent
tutor. I can use it to generate a web page and examine the output or,
more frequently, I can use its code completion and related
documentation to learn HTML. I can't imagine a better way of
"explaining" the C in CSS than the properties view in Dreamweaver.

Actually, I began learning html myself thru looking at the source of
html mail in OE and then dabbled with Frontpage. Such exploits may be
a decent way of starting out but they're not a substitute for the full
and actual knowledge of the discipline.

 

[David Segall]

In an already off-topic thread an attempt was made to start a really
off-topic sub-thread and

Anyway, I stopped thinking about that crap and got back on the
html-kick updating my site. Not that I'm so good, but what used to
seem impossible now seems trivial. I do endorse the evidently majority
opinion around here that using progs like Dreamweaver and Frontpage
just rob one of the valuable and ultimately necessary learning
experience.

It may be the "majority opinion" but I think it is wrong.

First, there is a substantial minority, maybe a majority, of web page
authors that do not "ultimately" need to learn [X]HTML. They are
entitled to know as little about HTML as I do about the way Microsoft
Word encodes a document. If there is a program that generates
error-free web pages there is no reason why they should have to learn
the underlying encoding.

Yeah! Like I'd like to hire a carpenter that doesn't know carpentry to
built my house, or mechanic without training fix my car. If you think
knowing your field isn't important in web design then obviously you
haven't fixed one created by one of these "experts".

You are talking about technicians who are selling their services. I
expect someone who is paid to design web pages to know the intricacies
of HTML and CSS. The substantial minority I was talking about are
setting up a personal web site or one for their church or club. The
field of web design is huge and it is unreasonable to expect someone
to learn it so that they can publish a page advertising the next
meeting of the Woy Woy stamp collectors society.

 

[David Segall]

David Segall wrote:

It seems to me like a logical extension of this line of thinking
would be: When someone comes into a/the group with a question,
and he has created his code with...uh...when he has let, let's say
Dreamweaver, create his code, the best way to help him would be to
advise him that he can learn what he needs to know by just working
on his issue more with, in this example, Dreamweaver. Because
that's the "better way" of learning, and he can further avoid
understanding the code that way.

I don't think the "logical extension" of explaining something to
someone who did not understand the first time is to say the same thing
again only louder. I argued that using Dreamweaver is a good way to
learn HTML. I did not argue that it was the only way and I have often
needed further explanation including some from this group. For
example, although Dreamweaver can tell you about variations between
browsers that might affect your web page it cannot tell you how to
avoid the problem.

 

[David Segall]

The problem is the "if" and also the exact meaning of your "error-free"

True, but the problem remains even if you substitute "person" for
"program" in my sentence.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

The Word format wasn't designed to be cross-application, and
there isn't any public standard or recommendation or specification
for it to conform to

I suggest that you read this:
[ http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=51463 ]

Oh, you're talking about their XML format.

In that case, I would say yes: if your client told you that documents
weren't working in one of the applications that they reasonably expect
to be able to use with your documents, then woe to you if the key is to
fix the underlying code but you are unable to do so while thousands of
your competitors can.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Actually, I began learning html myself thru looking at the source of
html mail in OE and then dabbled with Frontpage. Such exploits may be
a decent way of starting out but they're not a substitute for the full
and actual knowledge of the discipline.

The way I actually started, but it had a major down-side where I later
learned what poor examples my "mentors" had been. Much time was spent
since to unlearn bad methods and relearn better ones. Far better to
start out "right" from the start.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

You are talking about technicians who are selling their services. I
expect someone who is paid to design web pages to know the intricacies
of HTML and CSS. The substantial minority I was talking about are
setting up a personal web site or one for their church or club. The
field of web design is huge and it is unreasonable to expect someone
to learn it so that they can publish a page advertising the next
meeting of the Woy Woy stamp collectors society.

Basic HTML is not rocket science. CSS is altogether another story,
especially since the browser used by the majority so poorly support it.

So for armatures I would advise learning the basic knowledge of HTML and
then use a prefab template. Or get someone knowledgeable to do it for
you. Hey, same applies if you you are a Want-A-Be DIYer and want to
build a deck. You must learn some basic carpentry first or hire a pro!

 

[dorayme]

True, but the problem remains even if you substitute "person" for
"program" in my sentence.

mmm... that's interesting. The problem here is the meaning of "the
problem" in your last sentence.

 

[Neredbojias]

The way I actually started, but it had a major down-side where I
later learned what poor examples my "mentors" had been. Much time was
spent since to unlearn bad methods and relearn better ones. Far
better to start out "right" from the start.

Well, as soon as I started having problems with the code I glommed from
OE and that which FP generated, I started digging into the more
normalized resources of html like here and the W3C (specs). I didn't
really have too many bad habits to unlearn except my overuse of
javascript, but I see your point and the dangers it presents.