RE: [OT] Re: WYSIWYG HTML Editor
if dreamweaver would be available on Linux i'm sure there would be a LOT of
designer's making the transition, though i must add that Dreamweaver (not
UDev version) has it's flaws and shortcomings it is still a very productive
program to work with
my 2cents
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve [mailto:steve@hayseeds.dynip.com]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 4:51 PM
To: Richard Taylor
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: [OT] Re: WYSIWYG HTML Editor
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Richard Taylor wrote:
> > From: Steve <steve@hayseeds.dynip.com>
> >On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Richard Taylor wrote:
> >
> >> >Nothing in opensource is going to be close to DreamWeaver of course
-yet
> >> >anyways.
> >>
> >> That depends on whether you hand write your code or let a
> >> wysiwyg editor approximate it for you.
> >>
> >> Most pros will tell you that the only proper code is hand
> >> written.
> >>
> >> Dreamweaver does do a nice job when it comes to working
> >> up sketches. Then you have to go back and put things together
> >> correctly.
> >
> >Nada, a lot of pros use Dreamweaver as it's very good with code and
server
>
> "Nothing"?
>
> >side stuff, guess you haven't used UltraDev eh? ;)
>
> Dreamweaver makes messes. Redundant tags, nonsense, etc... It builds
> thing the way it has to which is not always the best way of doing
> things. this is why most new editors on the windows side use the sort
> of interface that Arachnophilia and Homesite use... a text screen and
> a preview.
You really should take a look @ Ultra Developer by DreamWeaver. It seems
you might not be familiar with it.
> The are much more efficient ways of handling site functions like
> synchronization ftp, etc. You're not going to try to tell me that
> Dreamweaver's FTP program is even decent, much less "good," are you?
I don't know, if even UltraDeve has that capability, I'm not talking about
the regular DreamWeaver, I hope you realize...
> >I'm not involved in doing html stuff myself, I'm the sys admin, but the
> >company I work for has a division that does fortune 500 co's web sites
and
> >they do use Dreamweaver Ultra Dev extensively. I don't think you'll find
> >many people hand coding a 500+ page website. ;)
>
> Why not? With copy and paste I can do that many basic pages in just
> a few minutes. With search and replace and decent text tools I can
> make the necessary revisions in not all that much longer. This is
> basically text we're talking.. there are many ways to manipulate it
> quickly. If you're talking anything reasonably complex... people
> are going to want to spend enough time on it to get it right...
> coding time is going to be the least of it. 500 pages with no
> content is pretty useless... ya know.
LOL, no a professional doing large retail sites is not going to use a text
processor, although a lot of pros do use BBEdit and DreamWeaver side by
side as BBEdit is seamlessly accessable from within DreamWeaver UltraDev.
> With a program like a pre-processor that writes things the way I
> want them written, at least I have the assurance that things will
> be done my way if not the proper way. Generally, they're one and
> the same.
It's like the argument that b4 good page layout apps like Quark were as
good as they are that the pros used to write their own postcript. Now most
pros use a professional page layout app like Quark because it truly is
WYSIWYG and almost no one writes their own postscript anymore. =)
Why? Because it's faster and makes fewer mistakes, in business time is
money.
That's why most pros now do use a quality html layout app like DreamWeaver
UltraDev, because it does the whole enchilada and is really very good.
Anyway have a good day.
-- Steve
ICQ 35454764 Powered by GNU/Linux kernel 2.2.18
10:35am up 19:45, 10 users, load average: 0.09, 0.16, 0.21
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: