|
|
Posted by oldwetdog on 11/25/78 11:49
verity wrote:
> 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).
>
the nic is a long story ;-)
I've found writing HTML/CSS to be both fun and satisfying, and
frustrating to the point of kbd smashing hysterics ;-)
Although it may not be so much the HTML as that the browsers
render it differently.
Wine is better shared. :-)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|