🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 18 May 1997, Simon Brown 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?

True enough.  But a good *graphical* editor could still be an improvement 
over a text editor.  For some reason everyone seems to be hung up on the 
fact that HTML is not WYSIWYG.  So what?  I don't think anyone is arguing 
with that.  But why should that mean that we need to resort to a dumb text 
editor to write HTML code?  I know that HTML is not WYSIWYG and I don't 
care if my pages look different on different browsers.  But please give 
me a tool that can do drag and drop, apply style tags, edit image maps and 
tables, does format checking, etc., AND lets me see approximately what 
the page looks like.


--
Gary Beeton
--