Volker Kuhlmann tapped away at the keyboard with:
For any serious office work text editors (emacs, vi, etc) are just to plain archaic to even be considered for html authoring, unless the boss wants to hire a computer science graduate for the office
HTML is not that hard. HTML is only a markup language, not a programming language. It was quite common in the 1970s and 1980s for "wordprocessor operators" to write markup tags into documents.
- not likely. Besides, they suck in essential features - they offer zero site management (i.e. keeping common elements on all pages without using frames).
That depends on the environment you develop around the content. Once a web site layout has been decided, it's important to determine what's content, navigation and decoration. By dividing the web structure into those elements, it's then possible to include the same content in a variety of presentation modes. (Accessability and bandwidth considerations usually require several modes.) And best of all, when you decide you want to change the appearance of the web page, you change only that and refer to existing content. The other advantage is that it lends itself to version control. Static dependencies can be identified and makefiles generated. If you like, you can then even update the live web page using make, sending only the new files essential for it to function. Use wget for quality control. Any HTML authoring environment that claims to be "WYSIWYG" is to be avoided. There is no such thing in web content. Start up a different browser, resize the windowd, change fonts and an "attractive" page becomes incomprehensible drivel. Whichever tool(s) you use, always check to see how it looks with different browsers. lynx, w3m, Netscrape, Opera, Exploiter, ... If the results don't look reasonable with reasonable browser settings, then it's your fault! You may be excused if the last of the above simply doesn't work. :-)
bluefish looks very nice, but is a text editor with a lot of sugar in the html department (and then it doesn't even do syntax highlighting?). Don't suggest it to your boss unless you want to make a fool out of yourself (or have successfully convinced the boss that command line is better afterall).
vim does syntax highlighting.
Luckily, there is no front page extended crap for linux.
Unfortunately, you're wrong. The "apaches" recommend against installing the module which I won't even name lest you be tempted by the Dark Side. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! | X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature| / \ and postings | to help me spread! |