HTML tagging error ettiquette

[Dean C. Rowan]

I am surprised to read that Sheryl, the person who posted the 
original message, has been called names by readers of this list for 
asking a perfectly reasonable question.  Roy Tennant has often 
commented about the overall good behavior of folks on web4lib.  Why 
has this issue aggravated folks?

My initial response to her question was, "Sure, let the designer of 
the clunky Web site know how you think the HTML--not the site design, 
per se--may be improved."  And even after reading the contrary 
remarks, my ultimate response remains the same.  The fact that the 
WYSIWYG apps build sites that appear the same as streamlined HTML is 
not entirely a good reason to ignore the clutter they create.   I've worked 
with Fusion and it generates triple the HTML you'd expect to find.  Yes, 
we're talking small potatoes here, but isn't that three times the bytes, 
more or less, that need to be delivered each time the site is read?  
And three times the storage required at the host?

Uncluttering a Fusion-built site would be an inordinate task, but 
Sheryl only wanted to point out that the site she had visited needed 
some tweaking.  Nothing wrong with that.

Then there are the comments  we've read since the inception of 
e-mail about how our words appear on the screen without the benefit 
of a wink or a smile or a glare.  I'm thinking of Dianne at San Diego's 
congenial reply to Sheryl, in which she warns, "Remember that the 
person can't hear the tone of your voice or know your good intentions, 
and this may be something they worked very hard on and want to be 
proud of at the same time they want to improve, so if the comment is 
made without sarcasm and without harshness and without a 'you are 
an idiot' tone, I am sure the person would be glad to know how to 
correct the problems you listed."   Now, I'm off on a tangent here, 
but since we're discussing etiquette--the word's misspelled in the 
Subject: field, by the way--I'm just curious why this issue seems to 
be particular to e-mail and not to letter writing or to literature in 
general?  Doesn't Dianne's remark apply generally to all kinds of 
attempts at communication?  And if one's correspondent "can't...know 
your good intentions," why not express them?  

(Do I really have to point out that I was making an itty-bitty ironic 
joke when I indicated the misspelling of "ettiquette," and that I was 
not being haughty and pedantic?)

Dean C. Rowan
Whittier Public Library