Re: decent unicode capable web app editor
On 2004.06.17, 07:38, Paul Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in any case anyone's interested the suggestions so far are: ultraEdit eclipse jText jEdit vim I'd add UniRed and EditPad. --. António MARTINS-Tuválkin | ()| [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| PT-1XXX-XXX LISBOA Não me invejo de quem tem| +351 934 821 700 carros, parelhas e montes| http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/bandeira/ só me invejo de quem bebe| http://pagina.de/bandeiras/ a água em todas as fontes|
Re: decent unicode capable web app editor
What about vim (vi clone: http://www.vim.org). I just converted a very large while i'm no design weenie, thats a bit too less is more for me. in any case anyone's interested the suggestions so far are: ultraEdit eclipse jText jEdit vim notepad (yes really. i use it quite a lot more than i'd like to admit in conjunction with mm's cfStudio with its broken unicode support)
Re: decent unicode capable web app editor
Paul Hastings paul at sustainableGIS dot com wrote: in any case anyone's interested the suggestions so far are: ultraEdit eclipse jText jEdit vim notepad (yes really. i use it quite a lot more than i'd like to admit in conjunction with mm's cfStudio with its broken unicode support) I have to add SC UniPad to the list, although its $199 price tag might be a bit steep. Note that by editing small files, or exiting and re-entering frequently, you can get a lot done with the unregistered (free) version. All of my Web pages, which I admit are not very complex, are written using SC UniPad. I also admit to being biased, having contributed the SCSU code and Vietnamese conversion routines and dozens of keyboard layouts to SC UniPad. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
RE: decent unicode capable web app editor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On in any case anyone's interested the suggestions so far are: ultraEdit I've used UltraEdit for several years, and there are several things I like about it. One thing I don't like, though, is its handling of encodings and encoding conversions. It's menu options in this regard are a bit cryptic, and I found there could be situations in which what it was showing in hex mode was not the same as what is actually in the file. I suggest some changes to the author, but didn't manage to convince him. Peter Constable
Re: decent unicode capable web app editor
On Thursday 2004.06.17 00:46:31 -0400, John Cowan wrote: Edward H. Trager scripsit: What about vim (vi clone: http://www.vim.org). I just converted a very large UTF-8-encoded HTML document (more than 15000 lines) to standards-compliant XHTML-1.0 and found the advanced regular-expression-based substitution facilities in vi(m) absolutely indispensible for adding all of the closing tags that XML requires which were missing in my original document. HTML Tidy or TagSoup would probably have served you better, rather than groveling over the code bit by bit. (HTML Tidy can do more cleaning, but it sometimes loops or delivers garbage if the HTML is sufficiently broken. TagSoup never gives up and never loops, but doesn't know as much about HTML.) Actually I did use Tidy too. -- Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim John Cowan Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum, http://www.reutershealth.com This neopostrealist / Rabble? she groused. http://www.ccil.org/cowan --author unknown to me; any suggestions?
Re: decent unicode capable web app editor
On Wednesday 2004.06.16 23:28:28 +0700, Paul Hastings wrote: from a pure web (html/coldfusion/java) application development/coding perspective (ie not dreamweaver, etc.) would anyone care to recommend a unicode capable editor? perhaps eclipse? thanks. What about vim (vi clone: http://www.vim.org). I just converted a very large UTF-8-encoded HTML document (more than 15000 lines) to standards-compliant XHTML-1.0 and found the advanced regular-expression-based substitution facilities in vi(m) absolutely indispensible for adding all of the closing tags that XML requires which were missing in my original document. I had been using a couple of other editors to complete the work, but as the conversion requirements got more difficult, vim proved to be the most efficient tool for the job. Note: If you do use vim or another vi clone in a terminal on a *nix platform, make sure you run it inside mlterm (http://sourceforge.net/projects/mlterm/) in order to display Unicode properly.
Re: decent unicode capable web app editor
Edward H. Trager scripsit: What about vim (vi clone: http://www.vim.org). I just converted a very large UTF-8-encoded HTML document (more than 15000 lines) to standards-compliant XHTML-1.0 and found the advanced regular-expression-based substitution facilities in vi(m) absolutely indispensible for adding all of the closing tags that XML requires which were missing in my original document. HTML Tidy or TagSoup would probably have served you better, rather than groveling over the code bit by bit. (HTML Tidy can do more cleaning, but it sometimes loops or delivers garbage if the HTML is sufficiently broken. TagSoup never gives up and never loops, but doesn't know as much about HTML.) -- Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim John Cowan Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum, http://www.reutershealth.com This neopostrealist / Rabble? she groused. http://www.ccil.org/cowan --author unknown to me; any suggestions?
