[Wolves] OT - Best html editor (paid and free)

[Andy Wootton]

On 17/12/13 15:21, Andy Wootton wrote:
>>
>> On 16 December 2013 17:11, Chris Ellis <chris at intrbiz.com 
>> <mailto:chris at intrbiz.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Wayne
>>
>>     On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Wayne <waynelists at machx.co.uk
>>     <mailto:waynelists at machx.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>>         Merry Xmas to all..
>>
>>         what would you recommend for paid for and/or free WYSIWYG
>>         html editor....
>>
>>         I've got a copy of Dreamweaver and it just seems a bit
>>         clunky...any other suggestions?
>>
>>
>>     IMHO since the advent of CSS WYSIWYG HTML editors are next to
>>     worthless.
>>
>>     The flexibility of styling that CSS provides means there are no
>>     strict rendering rules for
>>     HTML as such the WYSIWYG editors need to be CSS aware.
>>
>>     Every web developer I know writes the HTML and CSS in a text editor.
>>
>>
>> There aren't aren't many "good" ones out there for this reason, it's 
>> very easy to put together a site in CSS and HTML which doesn't tax 
>> you too much.
>>
>> It's worth having a look at the W3Schools website, it teaches a good 
>> working knowledge of CSS and it really doesn't take long to learn.
>>
>> Have a look at Twitter-Bootstrap if you want a quick framework to 
>> work with.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Kris Douglas MBCS
>>
>
> Disclaimer: I don't 'do' web pages but from a theoretical point of 
> view, tagging languages came about from an attempt to seperate 
> content, structure and presentation aspects of a piece of text, though 
> they've often fallen short of that ideal. It's always been 
> wrong-headed to worry about What-You-See because you can't possibly 
> know how it is going to be rendered on the 5m high holographic device 
> in zero-gravity. PDFs are much better at pretending to be the 
> fixed-size piece of paper graphic artists really want but 'apparently' 
> they're "too sensitive" to give a good slap.
>
> I've been looking for ages for a Free tool to start writing DocBook 
> XML (or maybe DITA) and recently found 'XML Copy Editor' in the Ubuntu 
> repo. It looks promising. It reads an XML definition and configures 
> itself to be aware of the relevant grammar.
>
> I understand that HTML5 can be written in XHTML syntax so maybe this 
> is viable option for web pages too? XML Copy Editor supports 'XHTML 
> 1.0 Strict' but I'm out of my depth now.
>
> Woo MBCS (Yikes, they're breeding!)
>
Maybe I should have looked at this first: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML No, XHTML 1.0 isn't good enough and 
XHTML5 seems to have been abandoned.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/wolves/attachments/20131217/18652985/attachment.html>