[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Overall, I benefit from view source. Court of first resort.
A problem that grows over time isn't understanding the
language, but picking the right language for the job.
View source works but it depends, once again, on what is between the
tags as to how well it works, and then somewhat, on the
naming of the tags and the effects of structure. It also
depends on **a freely downloadable viewer**. Don't underrate
the impact of that last bit. Free software, not view
source, built the web. You are right about the simplicity,
but that doesn't mean one should advocate taking a Kleenex
to the beach for a ground cover or that one has the right
to take a beach towel left unattended.
For HTML: easy. It works. What is between the tags
is mostly human readable text. Deconstruction is direct.
HTML is a bad exemplar for 'how things should be done'
but a good example of how a simple solution spreads.
For RTF: very hard. Nothing but a manual will get you through.
Deconstruction is useful. It is a bad example period.
For SVG: not too difficult. Depends on how well one
recognizes and uses graphics objects. Deconstruction
works most of the time but you are stealing content
if you cut and paste without much regard for originality.
Always read the copyrights.
For X3D: medium difficulty. This is an object language
in pointy brackets. The VRML encoding is easier to read
than the XML encoding. It depends on which objects the
author used. The Euclidean primitives are easy. The
indexed sets are opaque. The structure and scope are
important, so simple deconstruction techniques take time
and once again, you are stealing content. Always read
the copyrights.
For XSLT: very difficult. This is a functional programming
language. Without a background and some explanation, neither
deconstruction nor copying get one very far. XSLT protects
itself but read the copyrights.
View source is overrated for learning a language although
helpful, but once you know a language, it is a fantastic
way to acquire techniques and sophistication. Because style
is part of branding, it is precisely why binaries are demanded
by customers. We can argue endlessly about the effectiveness
of that approach, but cannot deny the market is demanding it.
len
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@comcast.net]
I do not think the point of the claim is that View Source is good for
complex XML or whatever. I think the real claim is that View Source was an
important factor in the amazing spread of the Web. I believe it. Even now
there are many people who learn their html by looking at source and
tinkering with it. This has lead to a lot of misconceptions.
|
