25 Dec
2008
25 Dec
'08
12:01 p.m.
> I guess that "modern" HTML has evolved
to the point where one MUST use an
> HTML generating program, and no more tampering with the raw HTML;
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Now that's nonsense. There are plenty of people
for whom "HTML editor"
translates to vim, emacs or another TEXT_EDITOR_OF_CHOICE. Writing HTML
markup by hand is very easy and usually results in more readable (and
less crap-littered) markup as well.
Thank you.
I wasn't sure for a while if ANYBODY understood my gripe and sarcasm.
I have used an HTML generator only long enough to look at the HTML it put
out. Everything that I put on the web is handwritten YAFIYGI HTML. My
[cob]websites may be crude, but they work reliably and quickly, and occupy
KB, not MB, space.
I've written some minor stuff in Postscript, but have also used the
Postscript output of Ventura as a means to communicate with some printing
equipment. I was always tempted to write my own output routines for the
Ventura WYSIWYG editor. It's handy for visualization for an amateur like
me, but I still prefer YAFIYGI.
My comments were directed at the probably realistic, but very
disheartening premise that the innards of HTML and Postscript were
"off-limits".
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
just as "nobody" writes Postscript.
In that case, there are also quite a few nobodies around ...