🚀 go-pugleaf

Simon Brown (simes@amdev.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> Paul Brown spake thusly:
> > 
> > >Those "WYSIWYG Web editors" just give their users the false impression
> > >that WYSIWYG were possible on the Web. It's not, and thus I think it's
> > >only half as critical what tools you use to do it.
> > 
> > Obviously our dearly loved Dr has become misinformed as to the developments of
> > the latest WWW page making software that has hit the market this last year or
> > so - even if it is unfortunately on the PC !
> > 
> > Look at Frontpage 97 and compare that to ed or cygnus ed ? or perhaps hotdog !
> 
> > Say no more ...
> 
> Indeed. If you reread the good doctor's last paragraph, you'll see that
> he's talking about *exactly* the sort of software you're talking about. To
> claim that WYSIWYG is possible on the web *is* misleading, because there
> are quite a few browsers out there and quite a few people with different
> resolution screens. That's why you should design the document by a concept
> of how it should look, rather than as something which looks good in the
> one application you've used to produce it. Yes?

Indeedy, I use vi for web pages personally... HTML is *supposed* to be
formattted by the remote machine and therefore you can only influence
the final output IYSWIM...

-- 
Save a haddock today. You never know when you might need one.