On 16 Feb 2004, at 14:42, T. Ribbrock wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 02:21:49PM +0000, Martin Alderson wrote:Ok, basically I should of said 'design a heavily graphical site _efficently_.
I'm sure you can create a site with a text editor (and I do it sometimes over SSH if I'm out of measures) and it will work fine.
I take it you know then that a good text editor for HTML has lots of
supporting functions, e.g. shortcuts for tags, syntax highlightin,
automatic indention and the likes. Many people (I don't know whether you
do...) seem to think using a text editor (or a tool like Bluefish) for
HTML means they have to write all those pesky tags manually. This is not
so.
Yes, I do. Dreamweaver does all of this and therefore I don't see the need to switch. It also handles PHP syntax highlighting fairly well, too.
However, I use Dreamweaver because a) it has a half decent 'source' tab
to edit with (which I do most of my stuff in) and b) I can lay stuff
out graphically without constantly having to redo CSS. Also, I find
that being able to use split screen code and design view allows me to
code as I usually would but also have the benifit of not having to
save, go to a webbrowser and refresh every 15 seconds is a great
benifit.
Understandable. There is nothing wrong with using a graphical tool IF it
produces W3C conform output, however, I can understand the sentiments
of some posters - and indeed do share them.
In the not too distant past, Pseudo-WYSIWYG[0] HTML tools produced such
deplorable output code-wise (Netscape Composer or MS Frontpage, anyone?)
that it wasn't anywhere close to being near to being proper, W3C conform
HTML. With the result being browser dependent pages, thus negating the
whole idea of the WWW.
Maybe there are graphical tools out there that *are* able to produce
W3C conform HTML/CSS and maybe Dreamweaver is one of them. I don't know,
but I admit I won't hold my breath... :-}
Considering most of my time is spent editing code (I use the graphical tools just to lay stuff out and then go into source mode to start fixing everything), so this is not a problem for me. However dreamweaver MX does produce very good HTML, and MX2004 (new version) has took a step down IMO from it with it's new wacky use of CSS (every time you edit a tags styles that doesn't already have a CSS style applied, it goes ahead and creates a new one for you with a stupid name such as style1, instead of using the style property)
Also, there is a real lack of vector based graphic tools (like Fireworks) on Linux. I can't stand using The GIMP or Photoshop for anything more than editing a photo.
Have you looked at XFig or dia? I've been using XFig for vector graphics
(mainly drawings) for years now, first under Solaris and now under Linux
nd Cygwin. It may look old fashioned, but I think it's quite powerful.
I havent, but to be honest I'm looking for something more web aware. Basically, a fireworks equivalent and not a CAD program :). Thanks for letting me know about it though.
Cheerio,
Thomas
[0] there is NO WYSIWYG in HTML/CSS. There CAN'T be, as the author of a
site has only very limited influence whatsoever on the platform the
site is displayed on and therefore should not rely too much on
assumptions thereover.
Basically, a "WYSIWIG" tool for HTML is the same as LyX for LaTeX...
-- ===> Netiquette - read it, use it: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html <===
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Thomas Ribbrock http://www.ribbrock.org
"You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!"
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Martin Alderson, IntechHosting
Email: martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: http://www.intechhosting.co.uk
