On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net> wrote:
authors of BlueFish see as an alternative to WYSIWYG that represents a preferable mode of authoring for HTML, which is inherently not amenable to WYSIWYG due to the fact that browsers are free to make so many of their own (or their users') choices in rendering any given piece of HTML.
A hair splitting point. The WISIWIG html editing tools on the market of which I am aware (including the freebe built into Seamonkey) all ALLOW for this, by letting you resize the window, impose your browser side fonts, style sheets etc. The idea that simply because it is possible to configure your browser to show a page differently some how invalidates an entire class of tools is silly. Do you know anyone who makes a web page with a text editor and NEVER checks it out in a browser? Do those people take the approach that since browser rendering intentionally is imprecise there is no point even checking? Of course not. Everyone checks the page to see it it is remotely close to their intended layout, appearance, and structure. Even with full knowledge that someone with larger default fonts or their own CSS would see it differently. All of the WISIWIG editors I have used do a pretty good job (excellent in some cases) of producing a page that views as expected (within the envelope of the inherent flexibility of html ) while letting you drag and drop text, images, tables, scripts, etc. to construct a page. All the users of these tools understand there is browser side flexibility. They still test their pages in other browsers. "inherently not amenable" is a rather strong assertion for something that is simply a personal preference. -- ----------JSA--------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org