You are here: Re: problem with email link. « HTML « IT news, forums, messages
Re: problem with email link.

Posted by Chaddy2222 on 01/03/06 14:06

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Mark Parnell wrote:
>
> > Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, pedro
> > <pedro@nowhere.com> spouted in alt.html:
> >
> > > However I don't want to have to do coding. I just want to be able to use
> > > a WYSIWYG page creator.
> >
> > Then you have to be prepared to accept less-than-ideal code.
>
> In HTML, "what you get" is structured markup, whether you want it or
> not. If what the author was seeing was structured markup, then the
> term "what you see is what you get" *might* just make some kind of
> sense. But what the Great Unwashed think they mean by WYSIWYG is very
> far from that. The best that can be said about HTML with that kind of
> approach is "what you see is not what others get". It's pretty much
> guaranteed that results will be sub-optimal when the authoring tool -
> i.e a graphical *manipulation* editor - is at such variance with the
> underlying architectural principles - i.e structural markup in HTML
> and optional presentational proposal(s) in CSS stylesheet(s). You
> can't make e.g structural blockquotes - or anything else that involves
> understanding the semantics of the original content - merely by
> shoving lumps of text around a graphical screen.
>
> > Though anything is better than Word
>
> It's feasible to do a fine job with Word:
>
> - create the Word document using a suitable style template, *not*
> by direct formatting[1]
>
> - export the Word document to RTF
>
> - use a suitable third-party RTF-to-web converter (the one I used to
> use at work is now obsolete, but I suppose that its successor,
> Logictran RTF converter, is even better).
>
> Word has had working structural markup since long before it was
> practical to deploy it in WWW technology!

That's interesting.
I am sure it could be done, but it's a bit teadious for a lot of people
I would think.

The sad part is that so few
> Word users have learned to use it.
>
> Stay away (of course) from any MS software which purports to extrude
> HTML.
I agree.

>
> > Word is a word processor, not an HTML editor.
>
> Nevertheless, there are ways of using it which make it better than any
> soi-disant "wysiwyg" editor. I pity that I haven't had the
> opportunity to explore that better in recent times, but from what
> limited experience I had in the past, I was satisfied enough with the
> results *at that time* (by now those results are outdated HTML/3.2-ish
I like NVU as it produces valid code without having to really do too
much messing around. The most trouble (that I know of) has been when
some users have tried to update there MS Frontpage sites useing NVU.
Which did / doesn't really work too well due to the large amount of
crappy code that is generated by the MS family of products.

> stuff, and I wouldn't present them here now with any pride, but I
> insist that for their time, they stood up well).
>
> > > Of the WYSIWYMG editors, Nvu <http://nvu.com/> is the best.
>
> It, like Mozilla Composer, is a graphical previewing web page editor.
> One can see, and edit, "what one gets", i.e the structural markup, as
> well as preview what one browser would display in response. Used
> properly, I reckon it's a fine tool (I must admit I still use a
> plaintext editor myself, indeed it's got easier since we tossed out
> HTML/3.2 and went mainly "Strict").
>
> I can't be bothered with all these "WYSINWOG", "WYSIJOPR", "WYSIWYMG"
> confuddling alphabet salads. Can't we try calling things for what
> they are, rather than for what ignorant folks who have no
> understanding of the underlying principles want to call them?
Interesting point.
I do think the WYSIWYG html editors are good, as they do make the
creation of websites a lot quicker and easyer.
But on the other hand. I do believe that people should at least have
some knoledge of html before downloading and useing the products.
Oh and while I think of it, NVU does have a source view, where you can
view the source code. But, like all of these editors, it change the
code, in one way or another.
I should also make mention, that I have not tried creating a document
in Nvu useing a Strict DTD. So I am not sure how well the program would
handle such code,
But judging how well it has worked so far, I think it would go ok.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

 

Navigation:

[Reply to this message]


Удаленная работа для программистов  •  Как заработать на Google AdSense  •  England, UK  •  статьи на английском  •  PHP MySQL CMS Apache Oscommerce  •  Online Business Knowledge Base  •  DVD MP3 AVI MP4 players codecs conversion help
Home  •  Search  •  Site Map  •  Set as Homepage  •  Add to Favourites

Copyright © 2005-2006 Powered by Custom PHP Programming

Сайт изготовлен в Студии Валентина Петручека
изготовление и поддержка веб-сайтов, разработка программного обеспечения, поисковая оптимизация