WYSIWYG editors and extraneous code

[Dan Lester]

At 05:15 AM 10/14/97 -0700, Thomas Dowling wrote:
>You only say that because it actually seems to do what its users agree is
>"the job."  If, for example, WordPerfect8 users suddenly discovered that
>they couldn't open a Word97 document because Microsoft wasn't actually
>adhering to a spec they claimed to use, all hell would break loose.  If

True enough.  However, bloated code isn't the same as broken code.  If some
stupid editor puts an explicit color code before every line of text, it is
wasteful, but doesn't violate any HTML standards.  After all, the standard
allows you to change the color of every single character if you want to.  

>Microsoft, Corel, and one or two other parties started arguing about what
>constituted the spec, what constituted adherence, what version of the spec
>should be supported, etc., you'd have a more accurate analogy.

But in that case each is writing its own spec....there isn't a common "Word
Proc Format".  I'm NOT supporting each outfit adding its own bells and
whistles as MS and NS are doing.  That is a different issue from code bloat
as such, and something that needs to be stopped.  In fact, both purport to
have signed an agreement to quit doing that, if the trade rags are correct.
 Of course we'll not see any benefits of it before IE5 and NS5, I'm sure,
and maybe not then.

>Bear in mind that HTML (which really is a simple language, even with all the
>fluff that's been added to it) is only the tip of the iceberg on the
>forthcoming Web.  There's Java, JavaScript, HTTP, XML, CSS, CORBA and IIOP,
>LDAP, and one or more flavors of Dynamic HTML, to name a few.   That's grad
>school, and everyone's flunking out of Standards 101.

True on flunking the standards.  But part of the problem is the standards
process is so incredibly drawn out that it can be dysfunctional to many in
the business.  NO, I'm not opposed to standards....we just need to make the
process simpler and quicker.  And no I don't have a magic answer for that
problem.  

>And every step along the way, there will be editors and development
>platforms, and every time we'll have some that seem to get the job done, but
>are pulling all sorts of proprietary, let's-stick-it-to-the-other-guy tricks
>under the hood.  Netscape Composer's nonsensical HTML tagging helps set my
>expectations for Enterprise Server's LDAP support, and I can't view source
>on LDAP support to see what it's really doing.

Again, the stick it to the other guy is NOT a good thing.  But neither is
worrying excessively about somebody's code being a bit less than perfect.

dan

Dan Lester
dan at 84.com
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.  Erasmus, 1534