|
|
Posted by verity on 11/25/28 11:49
oldwetdog wrote:
> 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.'
I totally agree with that & the way you have expressed it.
BTW your nic is interesting. :)
I have been working on my first webpage all in html (have done using
frontpage years ago) & my mind is spinning a bit, could be those two
glasses of red wine :o)
I'm glad I got the advice not to buy Dreamweaver, this is so much more
fun (I think).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|