Re: re: wysiwyg www-editors..

John Andersen wrote:

>
>Why is it when ever someone wants to do Web sites using
>a modern tool, someone feels the need to puff themselves
>up and assert how EASY it is to learn Html (forgetting
>to mention how long it took THEM to learn, and further
>forgetting that html is obsolete and you might as well
>learn XML and be done with it - in about 2 years).
>

As for the stuff about HTML being easy, it was easy
for *me* to learn the *basics* at least. However, I
won't jump to the conclusion that *everyone* can learn
it as easily as I could. I mean, I'm not dumb, but there
are things that seam "easy" to others that are totally
enigmatic to me. Likewise, I must assume that there are
times when I'm at the *other* side of the table.

I'm not going to talk-down to someone who wants a
WYSIWYG tool. However, I *will* point out to such a
person that there *are* *advantages* to coding in
HTML directly: first and foremost the fact that this
way you have more direct control over the code.

But if you're having trouble learning HTML it is
better to use a WYSIWYG editor than to tear your
hair out of your head in a fit of frustration.

As for your statement that HTML is obsolete, I strongly
disagree with that statement. There are several browsers
out there that still can't view XML. For example, I'm
running RH-Linux 7.3 and when I try to view XML I
get a bunch of garbage on the screen. True, 7.3 is
not the latest from RedHat, but it's less than 3
years old. It's a bad idea to tell people "time to
upgrade" if their OS is less than 5 years old.

I *tried* a few months ago to install RH9 on this old
lap-top. The result: it slowed everything down to a
crawl. Yes, it ran: but it ran slower than Molasses
in February.

So claiming that HTML is obsolete at this point is
rather presumptuous and IMHO it's also inconsiderate.


>
>
>We don't build presentation documents by hand using the source
>code any more and haven't for over 25 years.  
>

I know that when I last checked (which was less than 2
years ago) MagicPoint still had people using source code.

And if only it had the capability of hyper-link buttons,
I would not have found it wanting of anything.


>
>
>Why is it some people cling to hand-building presentation web
>pages by using html?  Is this some kind of security blanket that
>makes them feel all technical and smart.
>

Has it not occured to you that *some* people *prefer* it?
For instance, every HTML editor I ever tried had an annoying
habbit of always second-guessing me and often not even allowing
me to correct those second-guessings.


>
>
>(ABOUT HERE  is where someone will stand up on their hind legs
>and BURN a flameing email in which they will spout all kinds of
>platitudes about crappy html comming out of gui tools, and
>REAL MEN(tm) write it by hand using only a text editor, and whine
>about the violence done to their perfectly written html by some gui
>editors, and how only an IDIOT would use a gui tool, etc, adnauseum.
>And the flame will be pontifical, preachy, condescending, 
>authoritative-sounding, belittling, full of thou-shalls and thou-shants, 
>offering a whole raft of command line tools and perl scripts etc etc...)
>

Naw: I have no desire to flame you for that. But I would
appreciate it if you don't stereotype and lump into one
group everyone who chooses to edit HTML by hand.

For Linux to become the mainstream it is necessary for
geeks to be a bit more sympathetic to non-geeks (including
the fact that geeks who specialize in one area be a bit
more sympathetic to (and acknowlege the geekdom of) geeks
who specialize in *different* areas). But it also requires
that non-geeks refrain from flaming geeks just for being
geeks.

One thing I must say is this: if such a WYSIWYG editor
is to be written (or if such an editor *has* been written)
the programmer who *wrote* the editor *would* have to
be one of us-guys who *do* know how to code HTML. Yes,
he/she would *have* to be a member of this category that
you just flamed.

--