Quote Originally Posted by pauland View Post
...while WD is great at what it does, it achieves it's goals by compromising support for things that may be important to some, particularly in a corporate/business/technical environment...
Yes this is a good point which I acknowledged above on behalf of coder criticisms in paragraph 1 of part 2 (regarding limitations contrasting with design goals for WD version 1), but it is addressed in the last paragraph of part 1.

I'd bet that eventually when the WYSIWYG approach can simulate everything HTML coding can do, it will become the dominant approach to website making given its superiority in speed, WYSIWYG design and fewer pre-requisites (HTML knowledge) (analogously to what happened to the process of text editing, and PDF generation which is entirely WYSIWYG now and never coded). Until this time though, the coders are somewhat right in their criticisms of WD's lack of functionality, but not really for the poorer (almost petty--or at least pettily presented) reasons we've seen so far, such as size overhead problems and that the code structure is merely different (rather than the consequences of being different)

This conclusion is being echoed quite a lot now (at least by me); it's hard to think of any new arguments for either side at the moment. I think just waiting to see how the WYSIWYG approach develops in spite of the criticisms (constructively) presented above is the best thing to do now rather than further repetition of the same arguments.