S
Steven Burn
©® said:
See what you've started <vbg>
--
Regards
Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk
Keeping it FREE!
Disclaimer:
I know I'm probably wrong, I just like taking part ;o)
See what you've started <vbg>
--
Regards
Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk
Keeping it FREE!
Disclaimer:
I know I'm probably wrong, I just like taking part ;o)
B
Barry Pearson
Bob Adkins wrote:
[snip]
Quite!
Decades ago, I programmed computers in assembler. (And I could bootstrap from
the keys, and use a handpunch, correcting the cards by re-inserting the
chads!) I moved up from there to "high level languages" (several of). Then to
macro systems & declarative systems & logic programming. Now I use
applications where possible to hide all of that. Let other people worry about
it! I'll take their tools and use them. I want to work in the "solution
space", not the "implementation space".
I currently use DW4 for HTML, but often have to do things by hand. I use
notepad for CSS. What I really want is that within 5 years my (X)HTML and CSS
is untouched by my hands, and preferably unseen by my eyes. They are primitive
code that human beings should not be troubled by - except for the few who
provide tools for the rest of us.
There is no merit whatsoever in knowing the character-level coding of tags,
attributes, rules, properties, values, etc. At the very least there is a level
of abstraction above that which might know that (say) "paragraph" exists but
doesn't say what it looks like, or that a text colour may be mid-green without
bothering what the property & value for that are (and how they are encoded).
Tools could eliminate the possibility of unnested-tags, syntax errors &
finger-trouble at the atomic-construct level, etc.
But WYSIWYG techniques can work at a much higher level than that. The fact
that they have tended up to now to generate dodgy output doesn't mean that
they always will. Just as today's compilers are much better that those of a
generation ago. We need our best brains to develop high quality back-ends for
those tools.
What is the real "solution space" that we should be working in?
[snip]
Quite!
Decades ago, I programmed computers in assembler. (And I could bootstrap from
the keys, and use a handpunch, correcting the cards by re-inserting the
chads!) I moved up from there to "high level languages" (several of). Then to
macro systems & declarative systems & logic programming. Now I use
applications where possible to hide all of that. Let other people worry about
it! I'll take their tools and use them. I want to work in the "solution
space", not the "implementation space".
I currently use DW4 for HTML, but often have to do things by hand. I use
notepad for CSS. What I really want is that within 5 years my (X)HTML and CSS
is untouched by my hands, and preferably unseen by my eyes. They are primitive
code that human beings should not be troubled by - except for the few who
provide tools for the rest of us.
There is no merit whatsoever in knowing the character-level coding of tags,
attributes, rules, properties, values, etc. At the very least there is a level
of abstraction above that which might know that (say) "paragraph" exists but
doesn't say what it looks like, or that a text colour may be mid-green without
bothering what the property & value for that are (and how they are encoded).
Tools could eliminate the possibility of unnested-tags, syntax errors &
finger-trouble at the atomic-construct level, etc.
But WYSIWYG techniques can work at a much higher level than that. The fact
that they have tended up to now to generate dodgy output doesn't mean that
they always will. Just as today's compilers are much better that those of a
generation ago. We need our best brains to develop high quality back-ends for
those tools.
What is the real "solution space" that we should be working in?
T
TKO
How bout Mozilla 1.5a Composer©® said:
J
JustAnotherGuy
Tiger said:
Please. Do you accept that doing so raises the entry barrier?
You might be a web design guru, but are you a professional chef? How
dare you try to cook otherwise?
B
Bob Adkins
And just who are you to set standards for all?
There are purists, in-betweeners, and those who couldn't care less about
HTML hygiene. Fortunately, the .01% of us who are purists can not tell the
rest of us what to do.
Pete Roselle was the best commissioner the NFL has ever had, and he never
played the game.
I'm a damn good driver, but I can't overhaul my automatic transmission.
(Let me guess: You drive only cars with manual transmissions, right?)
Happy new years Steve. No offense meant. Just my silly attempt to make you
think.
Bob
S
Steven Burn
</snip>Bob Adkins said:
I think you've mis-understood me, I certainly did not mean to imply that I
have the right (nor would I ever presume such) to set the standards for
everyone else, nor to tell them how things should and should not be done
(it's basically, just what I was taught when I first started, and am able to
see the logic behind the "principles" as it were, that I was taught).
</snip>
I'm glad you mentioned the NFL then actually (I'd no idea who he was until
you mentioned that, and to be honest.... still don't, lol)
</snip>I'm a damn good driver, but I can't overhaul my automatic transmission.
(Let me guess: You drive only cars with manual transmissions, right?)
hehe, actually.... I don't drive ;o)
</snip>
None taken Bob, and certainly wasn't a "silly attempt" in any sense ;o)
Happy new year
)--
Regards
Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk
Keeping it FREE!
Disclaimer:
I know I'm probably wrong, I just like taking part ;o)
H
Hugh Scott-Elliot
Steven Burn said:
What absolute garbage. My advice to you is to keep your grubby little
opinions to yourself.
No gentleman understands nonsense like HTML and there's certainly no
reason why a lady should, either.
He should buy her Dreamweaver and have done with it.
Hugh Scott-Elliot
S
Steven Burn
</snip>
I'm sorry sir, I thought this was a discussion.......?
</snip>
I understand it quite well, and happen to know several people that
understand it a heck of alot more. It's not exactly rocket science.
</snip>
If he or she wishes to (dare I use profanity) "purchase" such programs then
by all means, they may freely do so, they don't exactly need permission.
--
Regards
Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk
Keeping it FREE!
Disclaimer:
I know I'm probably wrong, I just like taking part ;o)
A
-Art-
</snip>
I think you've mis-understood me, I certainly did not mean to imply that I
have the right (nor would I ever presume such) to set the standards for
everyone else, nor to tell them how things should and should not be done
(it's basically, just what I was taught when I first started, and am able to
see the logic behind the "principles" as it were, that I was taught).
</snip>
I'm glad you mentioned the NFL then actually (I'd no idea who he was until
you mentioned that, and to be honest.... still don't, lol)
</snip>
hehe, actually.... I don't drive ;o)
</snip>
None taken Bob, and certainly wasn't a "silly attempt" in any sense ;o)
Happy new year
ditto the Happy New Year...
If you are running some version of Windows, Frontpage Express will fit
the bill, otherwise you might try <blink>
<blink> is a professional HTML editor for visually designing and
managing Web sites and pages. Whether you hand-code HTML or prefer to
work in a Visual Editing Environment, <blink> makes it easy to get
started and provides helpful tools to enhance your Web design and
development experience.
Unlike similar products that simply spit out html, <blink> contains a
rules engine that allows you to develop for specific browser types or
doctypes (DTDs). The rule engine then proactively gives you warnings
on compatibility issues as you develop instead of after the fact like
html validators.
http://wojanware.com
registerware I think...
-Art-
S
Steven Burn
</snip>
Why does that word always send a chill down my spine......
\--
Regards
Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk
Keeping it FREE!
Disclaimer:
I know I'm probably wrong, I just like taking part ;o)
C
Ceg
them?Bob Adkins said:
EasyHTML from ToniArts.
J
JustAnotherGuy
Steven said:
Aww, you just fell for a classic troll!
T
Tiger
I never said they shouldn't design web pages. If I were to attempt
to cook something, I'd damn well find a good recipe book and follow
it to the letter...hence my previous suggestion about downloading
one of the hundreds of html tutorials and following it.
J
javalab
"Hugh Scott-Elliot"
so all those who code in html arent gentlemen, are they ?
j.
so all those who code in html arent gentlemen, are they ?
j.
A
-Art-
scum of the earth...
J
javalab
-Art- said:
i need to learn frontpage as soon.
maybe i'll become a peer.
to peer
j.
C
Ceg
javalab said:i need to learn frontpage as soon.
maybe i'll become a peer.
to peer
I'm a peer. In fact, sometimes I pee into the wind for distance.
R
REMbranded
I like Crypt Edit or PsPad. These have syntax highlighting, which is
pretty helpful, especially when learning.
CryptEdit requires a few plugins:
Crypt Edit: ~2000k
http://ps.yaroslavl.ru/
PSPad 4.2.5 (1806) - 24.07.2003 - 2000k
http://www.pspad.com/index_en.html
J
javalab
i registered editplus years ago and stick to it, but found crimson
editor, suggested it to friends, and one of them reports fine and adopted
it.
http://www.crimsoneditor.com/
installed it right now, looks cool.
in editplus i like the built-in ie-browser, tho.
j.
T
Toby A Inkster
Barry said:
The fact that WYSIWYG editors generate dodgy output is not down to bad
implementations, it's because they are based on a fundamentally flawed
principle: that HTML is a visual description.
No doubt it would be possible to create a good graphical HTML editor, but
it could not be described as WYSIWYG. Think along the lines of Mozilla's
DOM inspector, which shows the document tree and a preview of the file.
Now consider making that into an editing interface.