At the risk of starting another long thread on this issue.. (ok that would be fun)..

I have to laugh a tiny bit when I hear people say that WYSIWYG editors are better than straight HTML editors, or vice versa.

Does it really matter? Nope. As some of the "longtime" members of this site have stated.. if it works.. don't fix it.

In other words, if using a WYSIWYG editor produces an acceptable page that loads in all browsers and meets your client's needs, then go for it. If you have to (or prefer to) use an HTML editor to accomplish the SAME GOAL.. then go for it. One is NOT better then the other. They are apples and oranges.

On a side note.. this debate reminds me of the long-ago "Assembler" versus whatever "newfangled" language was hip.

Assembly language programmers went on at length about how much control they have over the code, the machine, the everything.. They could never understand why anyone would want a "high-level" language for programming.

The "high level" language guys couldn't understand why anyone would want to dick around with machine code. Who needs that level of complexity? Why would we even want to have such tight control? It's much FASTER to develop with C or C++ or VB or Cobol or whatever.

The Assembly guys came back and said.. those new languages add UNNECESSARY CODE to your program. The code is NOT OPTIMIZED. blah blah blah.

You see the similarities? Nowadays.. most programmers have never even heard about Assembler coding. The IDE's and "english language-like" syntax of modern programming languages got better and better, faster and faster... and now.. nobody cares that an optimized Assembly version of any program will run better, faster and cleaner on any machine. The modern languages work.. so why fix them?

(But yes, it did take a few years for them to get to the point where they "worked".)

Something to think about.

Henri Straforelli

<A HREF="" TARGET=_blank>
Simply</A> Simply the best way to spend your money.