[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Q: html editor
From:       Thomas <zander () xs4all ! nl>
Date:       2000-04-28 7:44:59
[Download RAW message or body]

I see you feel very strong about this, so I will just tell you mine situation:
I work in an internet company, we make websites by the dozens. Not static but
interactive website with database input/output. This is done via html templates.

These templates contain tags which do things like 
#if($costomer.HasDiscount) {
  bla
}

etc.

These codes I have to type by hand, so I agree with your statements.

On the other hand I can not and I don't want to create the tables by hand
that I use reguarly (since layers just don't work in target browsers)
And creating links to other files in my site is as easy as point and
click.
And what about converting a whole page to another fontset, it would take you
3 clicks in dreamweaver. It would take you halve an hour by hand, per page!

I good go on and on, wysiwyg is the way to go for professional html editors as
well; why? simply becouse it allows then to try more in less time. Not settling
for a working solution becuase you just don't have time to try others..

Well sorry, if I imposed. I see another program which has potential. I think
I'll look at it with a more open eye then you did. 

Thanx

> 
> Hi!
> Thomas wrote:
> > 
> > > I just want to say that I'm going to porting webmaker for KDE2 soon.
> > > Last week I've downloaded the KDE2 CVS, compiled and was _very_ pleased.
> > > It is great!
> > 
> > Cool, I'll get the webmaker sometime next week and take a look at it.
> > I really want an open source dreamweaver-like application on linux. So if
> > you like the concept of dreamweaver I'd like webmaker to become more like that.
> > The main difference is that the 'preview' screen is the editor screen; Wysiwyg.
> 
> Sorry, but I must disappoint you - WebMaker is not a WYSIWYG editor and
> I don't want it to become such one. The reason is very simple - HTML and
> WYSIWYG are two very, very different concepts, in general they are
> incompatible. So, all this "WYSIWYG editors" are only fictions, they
> fool people - they can start to believe that their pages will look in
> browser the same way as in editor. Generally such pages look very bad
> and unprofessional. And if you understand it and try to improve look in
> such editor it will take at least twice time that will be required in
> non-WYSIWYG HTML editor. And they are not suitable for professional web
> development - 95% of modern internet sites are not static HTML pages,
> but dynamic pages, generated from databases or other data sources using
> templates in HTML + PHP + SSI + embeded Perl etc. "WYSIWYG" editor can't
> handle this at all.
> 
> I'm professional web developer. I don't need such crap. I think that it
> is useless and even more, harmfull. I will not work on this. Let people
> that believe that development of full internet site is possible without
> HTML knowledge and in 5 minutes work on such "WYSIWYG" editor. It will
> be interesting thing - in general they also believe that good program
> can be created without knowledge of programming ;-)))
> 
> Of course, I'll try to add some things that can be called pseudo-WYSIWYG
> - table generator ala FrontPage, frame generator, CSS editor and so on -
> this are options, extensions that can simplify life and don't add
> problems of "WYSIWYG" editors.
> 
> 	WBW, Alexei
> 


--
Thomas Zander                                              zander@earthling.net
History repeats itself, it has to nobody ever listens.         gpg-key:  0588D5

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]