The worst part about its HTML editing is how Word seems to be tethered to its HTML capabilities - it's almost impossible to just create a free-form document where I can just add an image and drag it wherever I want on the page.
Frontpage is no better for quality of HTML, though. Have you seen the number redundant tags that it throws in? The nonstandard bits and pieces that only Internet Explorer understands? (and sometimes not even that). Dreamweaver isn't much better either.
There is one advantage here; if I want to find out what tools someone used to make a web site, I can just look at what kinds of messy HTML that looks so bad that it must have been done on purpose are there.
Frontpage is no better for quality of HTML, though. Have you seen the number redundant tags that it throws in? The nonstandard bits and pieces that only Internet Explorer understands? (and sometimes not even that). Dreamweaver isn't much better either.
There is one advantage here; if I want to find out what tools someone used to make a web site, I can just look at what kinds of messy HTML that looks so bad that it must have been done on purpose are there.