Settle this friendly debate

[run_GMoney]

Ok, I update a website from time to time with 2 other guys. 2 of us use Notepad to update it, the other one uses Dreamweaver. I've spent a lot of time sectioning off the code for easy maintenance purposes. It's wonderfully easy to update in Notepad this way. However, when the file is brought in to Dreamweaver, it gets all scrambled; erasing line breaks, adding unncecessary <FONT> tags (among others), etc. When I open the file after Dreamweaver's had it's evil way with it, I need to spend 5-10 minutes moving stuff back around. NOW, here's the dilemma. The 2 of us Notepad guys are a bit annoyed with this because it's causing extra work. The Dreamweaver guy could care less what the code looks like, as long as the end result is good. As a programmer, I HATE that way of thinking. He's of the thinking that "Hey, that's why they make these web programs, so you don't have to mess with the code." Maybe I'm stubborn but I don't like the extra crap that Dreamweaver adds to the code. I hate comprising the integrity of my code and not being able to associate a tag with a purpose. But that's neither here nor there, should we continue to waste our time bitching about the ****ty-ness of Dreamweaver or should the other guy suck it up and learn a bit of programming?

[mendhak]

Ask him to do your work for a day, and then proceed to take the file over to dreamweaver, add as many unnecessary changes as you can, and give it to him. :evil:

[JPicasso]

Sounds like you are in partership with one too many people,
or someone is partnered with the wrong two people.

Either way, decide on a format and either stick to it or find a compromise.


I once got yelled at on this forum for using <FONT> tags.
CSS is the way to go my friend, CSS.

[Cander]

Shove a wooden pole up his a--. Hes the class of person that is ruining internet standards. There are web standards for a reason.

[run_GMoney]

Well that's how these non-programmer types are. They don't care about web standard or code elegance. All that matters to them is the end result. Thankfully, this isn't a money making website just yet. It's pretty much informational at this point.

[Richard_Branson]

Raw code is always better - these bl*ody wizards are useless.

As for the dude who uses dreamweaver - ask him to walk a mile in your shoes!

[JPicasso]

Who cares about standards or elegance?

The point is to make it as economical as possible.

The problem with some of the wizards is that they can only take you up to a point - and then you have to either
a. start over
b. re-edit the mess it creates
c. start your own religion and have your disciples give you money so you don't have to work.


If the site is never going to be anything but an informaiton dump that only gets
updated now and again, who cares if it's all done in some chop, WYSIWYG editor?
If you are building a frame to work off of for future e-business or some sort of
freaky dynamic content then they can be detrimental to the whole thing.

Make a descision and tell him to either put up or F***off.

[Cander]

Who cares about standards or elegance?

How about the people using browsers that dont render the site correctly.

Or maybe the browser developers that are sick or writing guessing routines to figure out the intent of non standard html which slows down page processing and increases browser size? Or these browsers having to continue to support old outdated tags in addition to new ones.

Why should web page writing be any different than writing code? You think a compiler is written to accept incorrect syntax? No.

If the VB compiler isnt going to accept If without an End If, then a Web Browser shouldnt accept an <img> tag without an </img> tag.

[KayJay]

Doesn't Dreamweaver have a Validatator? Been a while since I've used it, though

[JPicasso]

I am in agreement with standards for web pages.

But I think we are talking about two different things.

I think that there SHOULD be a set of standards for writing web pages
with <someformat> and </someformat> being required.

However, it would be suicide for a browser to "just drop" support for web pages that are
not 100% correct. Especially since then a lot of web pages would not be available to that
browser. Not gonna happen.



But I think the complaint is that the dreamweaver STYLE is bad, and
ruins his nicely- parsed-for-notepad-html page.
Sounds like he's dealing with a stubborn Arse, and would probably have difficulties
with this nob even if all three were using notepad.

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

I've used Adobe GoLive, and other than some minor code formatting that I had to resolve in notepad, it does very good.

I think JPicasso has a point about it being economical.

It's almost like C++/VB!

On one hand you have more control, and more elegance, smaller code. But on the other you have rapid development, that gets across nearly the same thing visually, with perhaps minor manual editing.

If you call HTML itself programming, you need a hobby.