[sclug] Simple WYSIWYG HTML editor?

[John Stumbles]

Adam Trickett wrote:

> They serve a purpose if you want to quickly mock something up. If you use them 
> without hand tweaking you have to accept that your pages will probably be 
> some or all off:
> 1) Too big
> 2) Render tool slowly
> 3) Look wrong on some/all browsers
> 4) Probably not be fully accessible/usable
> 5) Cursed by the person who has to fix them after you
> 
> HTML is easy if you want things too look right, then learn how to read/write 
> it - it's not actually hard. If you are only making small changes to someone 
> else's pages then fancy tool with probably break the pages anyway.

I've coded HTML pages by hand for years (before all this CSS malarkey 
was invented!) but it was a PITA doing all the <tag> </taG> stuff even 
when tags were concise like <b> rather than <span style="font-weight: 
bold;"> and keeping track of it manually: that's just the sort of job 
you need a computer for!

But I don't want some POS that puts in a load of eyecandy whether you 
want it or not. My pages were once described[1] as dull looking, and I 
want to keep them that way :-).

Actually oowriter seems to produce reasonably clean-looking HTML - 
certainly compared with mozilla - though I haven't run it through a 
validator yet. Really the only thing I want right now that oowriter and 
mozilla don't do is that when I switch to view/edit source mode it puts 
my cursor at the same position in the file instead of back at the top.


[1] by the Radio Times, no less, who should know :-)

-- 
John Stumbles