On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:09:28PM -0500, Ken Schneider wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 17:24 +0100, T. Ribbrock wrote:
No. Per definition, there cannot be such a thing as WYSIWYG for HTML. The are some GUI programs that make creating a HTML page easier, but that has nothing to do with WYSIWYG. The problem is that you have hardly any control over the displaying side: You do not know what fonts are installed, you do not know the size of the screen, you do not know how many colours the screen supports, the device can be a mobile, a PDA, a text browser, a braille-converter, a graphical browser and so on and so on. That's nowhere near to "WYSIWYG". The only possible interpretation of WYSIWYG in this context is "what you see is what YOU get - and you can make some guesses as to what everybody else might see". Everybody using such tools should be aware of this distinction, IMO, and use the tools accordingly.
Cheez....
It's the same thing whether you write HTML code in vi or use a graphical editor. You can only present what -you- think most people will be able to see. In the context of this thread (Nvu, OO, Quanta take your pick) -IS- a WYSIWYG editor as it displays what the authors intent is to the author.
Of course the problem is the same - that's the issue at hand. However, if the graphical tools are dubbed "WYSIWYG", many people *will* expect that that's exactly what happens. For example. they will happily use local fonts - which will or will not result in readable pages elsewhere. That's not WYSIWYG and it should not be named such, as otherwise wrong expectations are created. What's so difficult to understand about this? Regards, Thomas