This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: Re: The best web editor From: Fred Herman <fherman@inferential.com> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:49:12 -0600 Gustav Schaffter wrote: > > Delicate question. These kind of questions almost always end up in a > small 'My editor is better than yours' argumentation. :-) > > On a general point: Any text editor will do a good work. If it's got > colored HTML syntax highlightning, it's a plus. That is, assuming you're > doing (all?) your HTML editing under X. > > Stay far away from those 'WYGIWYG' editors. There's been a long thread > on this list about some of those editors (read Win editors) using a non > standard representation of special characters, which renders the page > almost unreadable for any user not using a Micro$oft browser, but I'm > not convinced that non M$ editors are so much better. > > Besides, with a text based editor, *you* are the master of your code. > Most WYSIWYG editors are actually WYGIWYG-SU editors. > > Regards > Gustav > > P.S. WYGIWYG-SU == "What You Get Is What You Get - Shut Up" Is there such a thing is a "good" wysiwyg web page editor for Linux. I use NetObjects on a Windoz box, but I'd like to find something comparable for Linux. The folks at NetObjects told me they have no plans on porting their product to Linux. === Subject: Re: The best web editor From: wilson@claborn.net (Jonathan Wilson) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:19:08 -0500 First I'll assume that this person meant a WYSIWYG editor. As far as I know, there are: 1. Amya - browser/editor put out buy the Web Consortium. 2. IBM has ported there WebShpere stuff to Linux. That includes their server, but I understand a striped-down version of their HTML editor is available for free. 3. The one that comes with netscape 4. I thought the other day that I actually saw an open source project for something like this, but I've forgotten it's name. Try looking on www.freshmeat.net === Subject: Re: The best web editor From: Chuck Mead <csm@LinuxMall.com> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:33:39 -0600 (MDT) On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Alessandro Coppelli spewed into the bitstream: AC> AC> Hi to all. AC> AC> AC> Is whis the best web pages editor for Linux ? Screem and bluefish come to mind. I personally use emacs. === Subject: Re: The best web editor From: Rob Tanner <rtanner@cheshire.onlinemac.com> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:37:07 -0700 I just gotta jump in and take sides on the "My editor is better than yours" argument ;-) (see Gustav's comment below) For years and years, the first thing I did when I got to a UNIX box I hadn't worked on before was to install emacs. I have always preferred it because it's highly configurable and being a hacker from years gone by, I like the lisp syntax (believe it or not, it makes sense to me). Then comes along Xemacs which is based on the emacs code and I kind of think of it as "emacs with attitude". I don't do much pure html editing and so I don't know for sure, but you might check to see if Xemacs has an html-mode (mode files are hunks of lisp code that are downloaded and installed separately from the editor). Xemacs is not WYSIWYG -- thank the gods -- but it gives you both syntax highlighting and automatic content/sytax based indentation. The URL for Xemacs is <http://www.emacs.org/> === Subject: Re: The best web editor From: Vidiot <brown@mrvideo.vidiot.com> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:51:07 -0500 (CDT) On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Alessandro Coppelli spewed into the bitstream: > >AC> >AC> Hi to all. >AC> >AC> >AC> Is whis the best web pages editor for Linux ? > >Screem and bluefish come to mind. I personally use emacs. >Chuck Mead, CTO, LinuxMall.com I use asWedit. It isn't WYSIWYG, but it does have HTML 4.0 syntax checking. I just use Netscape to view the work. === Subject: Re: The best web editor From: "Adam Sleight" <adams@linearcorp.com> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:41:58 -0700 On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:58:38 +0200 Alessandro Coppelli <coppelli@dsea.unipi.it> wrote: # Is whis the best web pages editor for Linux ? http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/ (kinda like Homesite) http://peacock.sourceforge.net/ (just starting backup development, alpha) I still can't find anything close to Dreamweaver....but once the html is written I use vi to quickly the modifiy html pages. The reason I like Dreamweaver is you can: --sort tables by rows, columns --export, import csv into/out of tables --search & replace recursively throughout the entire site --clean up HTML (redudant tags, etc.) --record macros Macromedia probably won't start/consider porting Dreamweaver until Nautilus 2.0 is out. This is the #1 application I miss from Windoze. === Subject: Re: The best web editor From: lee <lee@imyourhandiman.com> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:41:04 -0700 Stay far away from those 'WYGIWYG' editors. There's been a long thread > on this list about some of those editors (read Win editors) using a non > standard representation of special characters, which renders the page > almost unreadable for any user not using a Micro$oft browser, but I'm > not convinced that non M$ editors are so much better. > > Besides, with a text based editor, *you* are the master of your code. > Most WYSIWYG editors are actually WYGIWYG-SU editors. > actually i've had VERY good results ( while yes for those that know exactly what they are doing text editors allow the best mastering ) with TopPage from IBM...... === Subject: Re: The best web editor From: lee <lee@imyourhandiman.com> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:22:07 -0700 1. Amya - browser/editor put out buy the Web Consortium. > 2. IBM has ported there WebShpere stuff to Linux. That includes their server, but I understand a striped-down version of their HTML editor is available for free. i'm trying WebSphere ( I have older one called TopPage but just in winblows ) but frankly its terribly slow i find......of course because it runs in background to wine.......ouch but still its very handy......i know most html likely prefer non-wysiwyg BUT in a pinch its sometimes faster and easier to crank something out........especially for DHTML positioning..... lee -= ===