Re: [OT] Re: WYSIWYG HTML Editor
Steve wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
It's certain that purely hand-editing a large site wastes a lot of
time. But the thing left out of this discussion is templating systems
like Template Toolkit. They can get rid of all your redundant hand
editing.
And HTML generation is easy to automate with one of those, where I'm
sure postscript wouldn't be, so the above analogy doesn't really extend
to those.
Not saying UltraDev isn't good. I rather liked the standard
DreamWeaver, but I have no interest in a WYSIWYG tool now.
Reply to: