🚀 go-pugleaf

On 16 Feb, 00:42, TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.com> wrote:

> I find it interesting, er, uh, amusing, that Adobe, the marketers of not one,
> but two high priced website development tools, GoLive and Dreamweaver,
> apparently don't use either to develop their own website.

I find it irrelevant.

Whether Dreamweevil is good or bad has _no_ influence on whether
Freeway is good or bad.
Nor does whether Adobe have a good or a bad site.


> Incidentally, the W3C Markup Validation Service found 0 errors with the
> Freeway site

Like I said, it's competent at doing the wrong thing. It makes valid
HTML, but its use of CSS is still inflexible and page-layout style,
not good web practice.


> Oops, I forgot, validation is apparently useless.

That's a straw man argument that you've created yourself. No-one else
claims this, or claims that Freeway's validity isn't a positive
feature.


> But isn't it adherence to standards that should bring
> about uniformity in presentation of a website amongst all browsers?

It's useful, but still far from a sufficient condition for this!

Secondly, why _should_ websites look the same amongst all browsers? If
you don't understand that yet, you have a vast amount of web design
fundamentals to learn about.

With Freeway I can design a trivial site with "a short word in a small
coloured box."  On my desktop this sits as a tiny box up near the top
of the page, just as I intended. On my phone (200px screen) it fills
the whole display and is far bigger than the contained word. This is
_not_ what I intended to happen. Freeway takes this bogus concept of
"pixel identical rendering in all contexts" and forces it across the
web, even to devices where it's inappropriate to do so (the font size
in pixels varies widely between my desktop and my phone).  Just try re-
sizing the font or changing browser window size in a Freeway-designed
site!