On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Russell McMahon wrote:

> Over the tears many people have said many rude things about the HTML produced 
> by Microsoft Frontpage.
>
> Presumably Microsoft are capable of learning, and I would expect (or at least 
> hope) that over time they have improved the product's low level output as 
> well as increasing it's features.
>
> Has anyone got anything useful to say positive/negative/interesting about how 
> Frontpage 2003 performs, and the quality / niceness of the code it produces?

Not about fp2003 but in general about html generators of *any* kind:

There is exactly one html standard, and there is exactly one way to test 
for compliance: using the free online compliance test at w3c.org. Anything 
that does not pass that test is *not* html as far as at least 20% of the 
computer users is concerned (one fifth, based on browser and server/upload 
access type available, combined). And this does not even touch on 
JavaScript (or ECMAscript) portability issues, it's just the basic 
formatting.

And anyone going the noncompliant way had better like rewriting things 
from scratch every now and then (like once a week or so) imho.

Peter
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist