As you suggest, we essentially agree. My post was directed at WebAssist - that's why I started the thread in the Wishlist section - so was hoping for consensus like this to strengthen the point I was making.
>I don't agree that CSSFB can produce attractive results - at least not without substantial deconstruction and re-styling afterwards<
I expect we do in fact agree on this.
>WebAssist has acknowledged the degree of dissatisfaction that has been expressed (with CSS FormBuilder), and has indicated that a future release would be a leaner, cleaner version.<
I didn't realise this. I don't read the CSSFB thread.
>Finally, the idea behind (and the potential of) CSSFormBuilder is really good. The process 'flow' i.e. - add an element, style the element, validate the element (with multiple options along the way) and saving as presets - all within a user-friendly UI - can make this an incredibly useful tool<
Absolutely. As an ex Interakt/ADDT user, this is what I would like to see in WA extensions. It was the recent announcements regarding DataAssist development and extensions to recreate ADDT features that prompted my original post; my fear is that integrating CSSFB into these new products would be an unfortunate mistake.
Regarding missing the point of the original post, I've explained this in a reply to Tone in another post.
>then the issue of extraneous code in Form Builder certainly seems to be a valid part of this conversation<
Yes, but suggestions for alternative methods for building forms is not relevant; this is where the thread started to go off course (more or less from the beginning).
I think my post was clear from the outset but if it was misinterpreted, I'll accept that it wasn't. I think enough has been said on the matter.