Content deleted Content added
→Criticisms part NPOV: 2nd reply to neutrality dispute |
|||
Line 141:
:::Those who come from design for print have dealt with a similar problem with inconsistencies between [[desktop publishing software]] and [[imagesetter]]s interpreting [[PostScript]] language. The solution was not to hand code all PostScript. It took years before DTP software became fully compatible with imagesetters. Desktop publishers learned to live with PostScript problems just as they are learning to live with inconsistent display between browsers. The inefficient code generated from WYSIWYG editors is improving just as quickly as consistent display between browsers is improving. [[User:Oicumayberight|Oicumayberight]] 08:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I've attempted to cite some specific passages [[HTML editor/Comments|Here]].
::::I think specific passages are not the problem though. The entire premise is flawed. HTML is displayed on computers. PostScript is designed for print materials. WYSIWYG is not possible on HTML. Rather than throw blame around, the article should adress why.[[User:Altarbo|Altarbo]] 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
| |||