As for Dreamweaver... I completely disagree. I started writing HTML eight years ago, and have since tried an assortment of WYSIWYG HTML tools. Dreamweaver is the only one I would even consider using (and do). The level of cleanliness (at least, for the simple to medium-complexity stuff I do) is comparable to that of my own, hand-tuned code. To be sure, it does take some, minor effort of setting it up properly in the first place, and diligence in alt tags and similar Good Code, but those are mostly all things that I'd have to do in vi either. Did I mention that you can directly edit the HTML in DW and it will not second-guess you?
About the worst I'll give you is that it uses <p> and </p> tags, and probably has more whitespace/indentation than I use on my own. For the sake of clarity, I think I can stand that.
Of course, I personally find it really hard to beat the Dreamweaver-Fireworks integration. Vector-based graphics are yummy, and 'Export slices to Dreamweaver,' is totally killer. Sadly, lately it's been more about the pretty pictures than the content. Been bizzy.
|Replies are listed 'Best First'.|
Re: Re: Re: rant on = qw(HTML::Mason Embperl Template etc) ;
by Maclir (Curate) on Nov 10, 2001 at 09:17 UTC