|
|
Posted by oldwetdog on 10/12/19 11:49
verity wrote:
> oldwetdog wrote:
>> verity wrote:
>>> oldwetdog wrote:
>>>> verity wrote:
>>>>> oldwetdog wrote:
>>>>>> verity wrote:
>>>>>>> oldwetdog wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Laplante wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If you've read this far at all you're probably ready to jump in with the
>>>>>>>>> view that Word is possibly the WORST html editor ever.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But. . .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Word can actually be a useful html TEXT editor. The trick is to use it in
>>>>>>>>> "Recover text from any file" mode. If you open an html file in that mode, it
>>>>>>>>> opens the file in text mode, not html view.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can then use Word's powerful text handling features such as "Insert
>>>>>>>>> file,"Auto Correct, search and replace, etc to create and add code snippets,
>>>>>>>>> etc. You can also use font and background colours, text formatting, etc as
>>>>>>>>> visual aids when creating "sections" within your file. You can use the
>>>>>>>>> comments features to add notes to yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Get creative and you can probably think of a few good ideas of your own
>>>>>>>>> using Word's numerous features.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When it comes time to save the file, choose to save it as a TEXT file, but
>>>>>>>>> give it the .htm extension. The first time you do that, Word will remember
>>>>>>>>> the file name and you only need hit Ctrl-S periodically to save your file
>>>>>>>>> during that editing session. If you want to save the file for future
>>>>>>>>> editing, remember to save it in native Word format. The next time you open
>>>>>>>>> it, your html will be opened as text complete with all the text formatting
>>>>>>>>> you applied before to aid you in your page editing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hope this helps someone looking for a good HTML text editor. . .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> M
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect you work for, or paid by, Bill Gates...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> never mind...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <soapbox>
>>>>>>>> However, forget using Word for editing or writing anything which
>>>>>>>> you will later use in any kind of code, including HTML
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not only are there the added steps needed as above, but when you
>>>>>>>> save your file, even in ASCII Text mode, Word embeds characters
>>>>>>>> which you then must search for and remove.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Word works fine for a spell checker...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> otherwise, use a tool for your purpose, not a tool poorly
>>>>>>>> designed to be everything to everybody.
>>>>>>>> </soapbox>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> owd
>>>>>>> Good grief, I'm actually starting to understand this stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I guess there IS hope for me... ;-)
>>>>> There's always hope,
>>>>> not always faith & charity though.
>>>>>
>>>> Hope springs eternal....
>>>>
>>>> Now Faith was a pretty lass, pert smile and bright eyes, while
>>>> her sister charity was a bytch...
>>>>
>>>> Oooops wrong page...
>>>>
>>>> actually, both Hope and Faith are within you, and I think you
>>>> have demonstrated that..
>>>>
>>>> Charity, now... No, it can be as rare as trust, and grudging
>>>> charity is a bitter brew indeed.
>>> Do you mean grudging to be charitable?
>>> I think it's a really nice feeling to give but whether it's a 'good'
>>> thing to give depends on the W's - what who when where and why.
>>>
>> I was referring to 'some' people being grudging when you are the
>> one who need charity. Charity seems to be used two ways, the old
>> way and the "deductible" way, and if it aint deductible you don't
>> get any. Then too, when someone is obviously displeased at having
>> to supply charity, they include bitterness and guilt with their
>> gift, like adding vinegar in you tea.
>>
>>
>> from reading your posts, I expect you have all three in your soul
>> -- Faith, Hope and Charity of the old type...
>>
>> About the "W"s, Agreed - mostly, except sometimes it is good for
>> the giver to give, no matter the who-why of the receiver.
>
> Yes, that's what I meant about it not always being good, eg when it is
> given in a way that demeans the reciever.
> Or worse when the receiver is later made to feel uncomfortable; this is
> /not/ charity IMO.
> The best charity is to facilitate someone helping themselves, self
> respect is important.
>
perhaps that is the only definition of Charity -- to Help
someone. That is, if the gift does not result in the recipient
being 'better' or 'improved' in a way that is meaningful to them,
then they were not Helped.
I also think, IMHO, that the 'gift' of charity must have value to
the giver to be of value to both the giver and the recipient. If
the 'gift' is trash and worthless to the giver, even if the
recipient does benefit, the giver does not. Unless, of course, we
consider emptying the garbage a 'benefit.'
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|