[thelist] FW: CROSS-POST: WHEN HTML SOFTWARE COLLIDES: Which is right?

[aardvark]

same as before, [thelist[ was a cc...

-------------------

From: "Villano, Paul" <VillanoP at usachcs-emh1.army.mil>
To: 
Subject: FW: CROSS-POST:  WHEN HTML SOFTWARE COLLIDES:   Which 
is right?
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:09:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"

When we last left our hero (okay, I'm not a hero but let's fake it for now)
he was struggling with inconsistencies between HTML software.  One would
clean up code and say everything was fine while another would say that there
were errors or that a certain tag was illegal.  

Point of clarification:  I enjoy handcoding but am trying to find the
"lingua franca" that will work for the largest number of people only
experienced with word processing and who can't or won't learn HTML for
themselves.  But, of course, there is the requirement for W3C compliant
code.

Well, I found the answer through a surprising way.  In answer to another
question (about XML) I was referred to "Tidy" software which is touted by
the W3C itself!  Sooooo....the answer I infer is that if it passes Tidy,
it's good to go.  W3C recommends two HTML editors that incorporate Tidy:
HTML-Kit and 1st Page (both free).  (W3C also says the new Microsoft HTML
Filter 2.0 works very well but not as good as Tidy as removing vestiges of
MS "web page" material.)

Some of us were a little leery of 1st Page because the "Scriptz" thingy
makes us a little nervous. I don't like the allusion to hackers with the
cutesy "z" stuff.  There doesn't seem like there's much attribution to where
they're getting these scripts, some folks who know scripts better than I say
there are errors in some of the scripts and some say that 1st Page (which is
free) is a little too close for comfort to some software that you must pay
for.  HOWEVER, I must admit that it is very nice and the best incorporation
of Tidy I've seen (automatically fixes everything with an option to undo).

Bottom line, seems to me that if we want W3C compliant code, using what 
W3C
recommends just makes sense.  We should probably keep after software
companies to incorporate these things.

Parting question:  W3C also explains that Tidy can be set up to remove all
Word 2000 "crap code" (my phrase) through the command line, but does 
anyone
using HTML-Kit or 1st Page or any other editor (Arachnophilia, Dreamweaver,
etc.) know how to get those programs to use that Tidy option?  I can't seem
to find that explained in either software.

Thanks in advance!

Paul  -- "For God and Country!"
"Resolved:  To live with all my might while I do live, and as I will wish I
had lived ten thousand years from now." Jonathan Edwards