[sclug] Simple WYSIWYG HTML editor?

John Stumbles john at stumbles.org.uk
Mon Mar 3 16:00:51 UTC 2008

Adam Trickett wrote:

> If you are using in-line styles then you are doing it very wrong. In-line 
> styles are what you get from automated tools, and a clear sign of poor 
> markup. Build you pages using only structural HTML, you are allowed the odd 
> class and id attribute, then use an external style sheet to add all the 
> eye-candy.

Well it's not *me* using inline styles, that's mozilla (though not 
oowriter - the only styles it seems to put in are <P 
STYLE="margin-bottom: 0cm">.

But I take your point about tools doing their own thing.

Trouble is I'm way out of the loop on modern HTML - these days most of 
my web output is via wikis - so I'd have a steep learning curve to get 
back up to speed on coding from raw.

> Dull and functional is good, however that's not to say a little sprinkle of 
> css doesn't help. You do have webdeveloper and Firebug installed in your 
> Firefox? These are fantastic tools for web development. The nearest thing to 

Do I? ... I think not :-)
Should I have? webdeveloper's a Debian package so I could install it 
easily enough, might give it a go if I don't get on with Amaya

> The WYSIWYG tools are okay for a rough mock-up or prototype, but to get 
> anything decent looking you need to tweak by hand.

TBH I'm trying to get the words across. Looks are way down the line.

As I said, I just want a simple no-nonsense tool. Like there used to be 
many years ago[1] for writing nicely structured non-HTML[2] docs where 
you typed away and if you wanted to fiddle with the markup there was a 
'show codes' function[3]

[1] when if you were running *n*x on your x86 box[4] it was called SCO[5]
[2] hell, there *wasn't* HTML in them days
[5] probably Shift+F_something: I don't know, I used WordStar :-(
[4] where x was between null and 3 :-)
[5] which was a company that employed more coders than lawyers :-)

John Stumbles

More information about the Sclug mailing list