[sclug] Simple WYSIWYG HTML editor?

phillip.chandler@ntlworld.com phillip.chandler
Tue Mar 4 08:09:56 UTC 2008

I use Dreamweaver under both Windows XP & Crossover (Ubuntu 7.10). It sometimes crashes out, seeing as its not running under the O/S it should be. But Ive always found Dreamweaver to be the best, for both Drag-And-Drop and writing html code. I have to use the excuse that you get what you pay for. If your not prepared to pay out for a package, then your alternative is to use a "Free" package, therefore maybe having to learn html, in say a text editor, all because you didnt want to pay out. NVu & Kompozer are great, free alternatives, but unfortunately my belief is that they are sub standard to Dreamweaver.
But Im being lazy. I can use Dreamweaver and drag-and-drop, create web sites and pages in a 3rd of the time it takes to use a linux version, then at the end tweaking the html code to tidy stuff up. But then one of you is going to put me in my place, byt saying you can write a web page in a text editor in even less time. Its all down to what your prepared to pay out for, use all the time and get used to.

> From: Dickon Hood <sclug at splurge.fluff.org>
> Date: 2008/03/03 Mon PM 11:06:17 GMT
> To: sclug at sclug.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [sclug] Simple WYSIWYG HTML editor?
> Having read the rest of the thread with some morbid interest..:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:48:28 +0000, Adam Trickett wrote:
> : On Monday 03 Mar 2008, John Stumbles wrote:
> : > Can anyone suggest a simple WYSIWYG HTML editor?
> : No, fundamentally I don't believe such a thing exists. They all screw up your 
> : HTML at best, and wreck everything at worst. Personally I think you are 
> : better off with a source editor, though I agree it's nice to have something 
> : that helps you out, e.g. Quanta+ or Bluefish.
> ... that's probably closest to what I've found.
> : > I'm just thinking surely there's something better?
> : Your options are:
> : * Dreamweaver (pay your money and hope it works on WINE, or dual boot or run 
> : Windows in a VM).
> For what little it's worth, most of www.bbc.co.uk's content (note: www,
> not news) is written in Dreamweaver, based on templates that have been
> hand-crafted by some very clever people who actually know what they're
> doing, with a bunch of SSIs doing the interesting stuff around the edges.
> >From what I can see, that's the best way of dealing with sites: write some
> proper templates, hand them to someone probably clueless but with the
> content required, and never edit them again.  Just repeat that cycle with
> fresh copies of the templates and new content.
> : * Mozilla Composer (not much development I believe)
> : * Nvu (Spin off from Composer, though I believe development has died also)
> : * Kompozer (Spin off from Nvu)
> : Source Editors:
> : HTML-Kit (Windows software that runs under WINE)
> : Quanta+ (KDE)
> : Bluefish
> vim.  It's what I write all mine in these days, although if you've ever
> seen any pages of mine, I admit that's not much of an advert.
> : Sorry to sound negative, but editing HTML properly is something that
> : should be done in the RAW, it's the only way to get acceptable and
> : repeatable results.  If you don't want to lean HTML, then don't make web
> : pages. HTML isn't hard either, the basics are fairly straight forward.
> Agreed, I think.
> -- 
> Dickon Hood
> Due to digital rights management, my .sig is temporarily unavailable.
> Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.  We apologise for the
> inconvenience in the meantime.
> No virus was found in this outgoing message as I didn't bother looking.

Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

More information about the Sclug mailing list