I completly agree with what you said, and that's why, I told in the previous thread... « … Moreover, today, the notion of a website itself can be completely different. Depending on whether one are trying to present a newsletter, or building a one page site full of animation, parallax effects, transitions.... , or having a hard dynamic website 'à la papa' ('old fashion look and feel') completely PHP/SQL based, or a web application that meets innovative needs relying on 'modern' conception, or being distributed as a complete integrated mobile consultation... » the problem, is that each one of us in this thread, just watch the thread by its own angle of vision... and don't really try to understand what others propose and say... when one say one word , in occurence, the word EXTENSIONS... woaw, it become a very hot and stretched talks... then from there, if one talk about extensions... at least I... talk about extension sin a general way... in the absolute range... from the David's lorem ipsum to the Interact panoplie (I voluntary speak about a killed, huge killer) so to answer precisly to your question... yes there is some type of users (whatever they are, coders, non coders, whatever) that would like that DW will propose the full use of standards (HTML, CSS, APIs, ECMA) without any use of extensions... and yes there is some type of users (whatever they are, coders, non coders, whatever) that would like that DW will propose an easy way (for both side of the use (creator and end users)) to use and set extensions. beside that extensions makers should really respect the use and feel of semantics, accessibility, metadata, when the extension has to handle the core content of the web site...
... View more