SteveMann - 3:30 pm on Jun 2, 2010 (gmt 0)
"Srsly... it's a nightmare, vis"
Granted that WWB does not use a separate CSS file which would eliminate the frequent font definitions. It does tend to make bloated code. But unreadable mess? It looks pretty well organized and properly indented in Textpad. You forget the basic tenet of a website builder as opposed to an HTML editor - you do not need to edit the code. The object is to generate a web site where the parties involved are happy with the appearance and performance. They are *NOT* HTML editors. Never were, never meant to be.
If you are handed a DW or WWB site to maintain, then you can either learn DW /WWB or start over. The code from DW and WWB is *not* intended for your level of editing. Never was. Never will be.
Both styles have their place. DW and WWB is perfect for those who just want a site online quickly and don't care what the code looks like as long as the parties involved are happy with the appearance and performance.
Again. Referring to the WWB site - Apparently the owners and users are happy with the appearance and performance. So, what is **BROKEN**? What needs fixing? It isn't "broken" and require "fixing" just because it doesn't generate code to your standards. ("Broken" usually means it does not work as designed). I am sorry, sir, to tell you that you *are* being elitist. Do you also dis Microsoft Windows because it is largely written with a compiler and not in assembler language?