On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:52, you wrote:
> Most authoring tools are bad, a lot of them don't deal
> with semantic markup but pretend the web is a glorified
> word processor. However you should also be wary of the
> trade offs. Easy to use tools let more people create
> content. In addition content man
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/09/03 03:30PM >>>
>One thing, though.
>
>Most people here referred to authoring web pages, not web sites. emacs,
>vim and not-tab-pro may be great editors, but they are still meant for
>editing single HTML pages.
>
>Even if your "site" is only a couple of pages, adding some
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 20:30, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> Of the tools mentioned here, mozilla, word and such create html pages.
> FrontPage and DreamWeaver create "sites". I'm not sure about Quanta.
Mostly about sites. Both the Red Hat CCM/CMS and things like Typo3
(www.typo3.org) are open source syste
>
> See http://villa.lakes.com/mnimages for an example. (Blatant
> self plug intended)
>
I love the turkey. It's like he's sayin', "You're gonna do WHAT with that
ax?"
(Actually, I really like the moose...)
Leland
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Rick Troth wrote:
> I have to say this, though some won't like hearing it:
>
> + compose your HTML by hand
> + start with static content (no scripts at first)
> + construct your scripts (active content) by hand
>
> Machine-generated HTML is a horrib
ory and practice are the same,
but in practice, theory and practice are different."
> -Original Message-
> From: Post, Mark K [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OT- Website creation Soft
> Well, I'm glad you brought it up Rick. I now know that I'm not alone. The
> best HTML package around is Notepad (or your text editor of choice). The
> generators just make crap.
I'd like to gently disagree. Editors like NoteTab Pro have the usability and
"closeness to
the metal" that Notepa
orrible HTML can be generated with tools, or by hand. Good HTML is the
same way. Like most things, it's not the tool, but how it's used.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subje
>
> HTML takes a day to think you learned. When your pages pass the
> validator.w3.org site and the bobby accessibility test set then maybe
> you have learned.
>
Completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but I just wanted to pipe in here
and thank you for mentioning the accessibility tests. The c
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 17:35, Phil Payne wrote:
> I have to say this, though some won't like hearing it:
> >
> > + compose your HTML by hand
> > + start with static content (no scripts at first)
> > + construct your scripts (active content) by hand
> >
> > Machine-gener
Well, I'm glad you brought it up Rick. I now know that I'm not alone. The
best HTML package around is Notepad (or your text editor of choice). The
generators just make crap. Coding HTML yourself is a great learning tool,
too!
On Thursday 09 January 2003 11:21 am, you wrote:
> I have to say thi
I have to say this, though some won't like hearing it:
>
> + compose your HTML by hand
> + start with static content (no scripts at first)
> + construct your scripts (active content) by hand
>
> Machine-generated HTML is a horrible mess
> and will likely lead to conten
I have to say this, though some won't like hearing it:
+ compose your HTML by hand
+ start with static content (no scripts at first)
+ construct your scripts (active content) by hand
Machine-generated HTML is a horrible mess
and will likely lead to content maintenance
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 12:20, Herve Bonvin wrote:
> I don't know FrontPage but Mozilla is a nice tool to edit web page. Could be used on
>Windows too ...
Depends how big you are thinking
emacs has an html mode
Mozilla has web page composing
KDE has quanta
There are also c
Thanks Phil , Colin , Quanta is it.
Regards
Gerard
-Original Message-
From: Colin Walls [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 09 January 2003 02:52
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT- Website creation Software
> Slightly off topic , what software is the for website
> creation under
Colin Walls wrote:
> Slightly off topic , what software is the for website
>creation under Linux (> ala FrontPage) ?.
I can't think of anything as bad as FrontPage. Personally I use Xemacs
with the psgml extension. If you want to go for something that is more
GUI like, then try Quanta.
Worse
> Slightly off topic , what software is the for website
> creation under Linux (> ala FrontPage) ?.
I can't think of anything as bad as FrontPage. Personally I use Xemacs with
the psgml extension. If you want to go for something that is more GUI like,
then try Quanta.
Internet communications are
> Slightly off topic , what software is the for website creation under Linux (
> ala FrontPage) ?.
I do hope - and reasonably expect - that there's nothing as bad as FrontPage available
for
Linux.
--
Phil Payne
http://www.isham-research.com
+44 7785 302 803
+49 173 6242039
I don't know FrontPage but Mozilla is a nice tool to edit web page. Could be used on
Windows too ...
Regards,
Herve
-Original Message-
From: Ceruti, Gerard G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT- Website cre
Hi People
Slightly off topic , what software is the for website creation under Linux (
ala FrontPage) ?.
Thanks
Gerard
__
Disclaimer and confidentiality note
Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relating to the official business of
Standard
20 matches
Mail list logo
