Site Ratings & Reviews

Author

best

Nowhere

2005-01-13, 7:16 am

Which is best, 'AceHTML 5', or 'Dreamweaver'.

Bluenose

2005-01-13, 7:16 am

Dreamweaver and if anybody can find a better program I am all ears but I
they will have big balls of cotton wool in them :)

Duende

2005-01-13, 7:20 pm

While sitting in a puddle Nowhere scribbled in the mud:

> Which is best, 'AceHTML 5', or 'Dreamweaver'.
>
>
HTML-Kit

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

Curt

2005-01-13, 7:20 pm

On 13 Jan 2005 19:01:09 GMT, Duende <usenet@wipkip.biz> wrote:

> HTML-Kit

I agree
That's what I use too

Chami is great.

Greetings from good old Germany
Curt

Curt

2005-01-13, 7:20 pm

On 13 Jan 2005 19:01:09 GMT, Duende <usenet@wipkip.biz> wrote:

> HTML-Kit

I forgot:

Support by Newsgroup
news.chamisplace.com

In the Web you will find it here:
http://www.chami.com/html-kit/

Curt

----------

www.curt-balluff.de

Virginia

2005-01-13, 11:19 pm

"Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com> wrote in message
news:34n3htF4d5c1uU1@individual.net...
> Dreamweaver and if anybody can find a better program I am all ears but I
> they will have big balls of cotton wool in them :)

I agree with you 100% Bluenote - I've used Dreamweaver and Go Live also

get-it

2005-01-13, 11:19 pm

> >>
>
> I agree
> That's what I use too
>
> Chami is great.
>
> Greetings from good old Germany
> Curt
>

60 page site. Dreamweaver. You update one page, the template, and it
automatically updates all 60 pages instantly. You just can't beat that.
Try updating 60 freaking pages, one by one.

Does anyone know of any shareware or freeware, that can do this, or get
around this? NVU is making promises, teasing/tickling/...snaking, but I
haven't seen one line of such work yet.

I've heard that some "find and replace" software is capable, grabs all files
in the folder, but I have yet to find that one either. Too, this route
sounds unsafe, tricky, to me.

Comments Welcome,
get-it

get-it

2005-01-13, 11:19 pm

Dreamweaver MX2004 presently has a free trial download, works for 1
month. So is the entire Macromedia Studio, free trial.

Take Care,
get-it

"get-it" <getit@getit.com> wrote in message
news:7Kmdnd3G1aMSpnrcRVn-3w@eatel.net...
>
> 60 page site. Dreamweaver. You update one page, the template, and it
> automatically updates all 60 pages instantly. You just can't beat that.
> Try updating 60 freaking pages, one by one.
>
> Does anyone know of any shareware or freeware, that can do this, or get
> around this? NVU is making promises, teasing/tickling/...snaking, but I
> haven't seen one line of such work yet.
>
> I've heard that some "find and replace" software is capable, grabs all
files
> in the folder, but I have yet to find that one either. Too, this route
> sounds unsafe, tricky, to me.
>
> Comments Welcome,
> get-it
>
>

get-it

2005-01-14, 4:17 am

"Curt" <post@curt-balluff.de> wrote in message
news:3fldu0hmjo1t3gp6c6n6s1q4q5vanr2la8@4ax.com...
> On 13 Jan 2005 19:01:09 GMT, Duende <usenet@wipkip.biz> wrote:
>
>
>
> I forgot:

What do you use for site updates; a menu, for instance?

Forgot?

Kiddingggggggggg,
get-it

Starshine Moonbeam

2005-01-14, 4:17 am

In article <cs5krd$trl$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Nowhere
(Nowhere@nowhere.invalid) dropped a +5 bundle of words...

> Which is best, 'AceHTML 5', or 'Dreamweaver'.

DIY.

--
Starshine Moonbeam
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM

Neal

2005-01-14, 4:17 am

Bluenose <dunno@dunno.com> wrote:

> Dreamweaver and if anybody can find a better program I am all ears
> but I
> they will have big balls of cotton wool in them :)

Openminded, aren't we?

Bluenose

2005-01-14, 4:17 am

"Curt" <post@curt-balluff.de> a écrit dans le message de news:
3fldu0hmjo1t3gp6c6n6s1q4q5vanr2la8@4ax.com...
> On 13 Jan 2005 19:01:09 GMT, Duende <usenet@wipkip.biz> wrote:
>
>
>
> I forgot:
>
> Support by Newsgroup
> news.chamisplace.com
>
> In the Web you will find it here:
> http://www.chami.com/html-kit/
>
> Curt
>
> ----------
>
> www.curt-balluff.de
>

I'm sorry but I really think you should not post this sort of nonsense but
then again I have no idea what sort of sites you create and you obviously
are not a serious web developer. As I said in the beginning, nothing beats
Dreamweaver or even comes close to it's capabilities. If you want to create
dumbo sites for a nephew then maybe HTML-whatever might be ideal, but go
anywhere near dynamic, css-p, general optimal performance and a workspace to
die for then go the Dreamweaver route. The program could be a bit daunting
for a novice, there is a little program by the name of HotDog and is
suitable for newbies. But IMHO you might as well jump in and get to grips
with Dreamweaver.

Cheers

Bluenose

Bluenose

2005-01-14, 4:17 am

a écrit dans le message de news: MPG.1c5106d1d285cd0098a384@news.alt.net...
> In article <cs5krd$trl$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Nowhere
> (Nowhere@nowhere.invalid) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
>
>
> DIY.
>
>

Good point but once again DIY comes a bit frustrating when developing
professional sites, in any case, a good website............well you
shouldn't be able to see which program the developer used. We all have our
way's and I suppose it all boils down to what you want to achieve.

Cheers

Bluenose.

Bluenose

2005-01-14, 4:17 am

de news: opskktk9ly6v6656@news.individual.net...
> Bluenose <dunno@dunno.com> wrote:
>
>
> Openminded, aren't we?
>

Yes most definitely and also a "professional" web developer who creates
"professional" web sites with a "professional" program, if you see anything
wrong with that I will be all ears and would love to hear some of your view
points.

Fire away please.

Cheers

Bluenose.

Jay Gilmore

2005-01-14, 12:18 pm

Bluenose wrote:

> Dreamweaver and if anybody can find a better program I am all ears but I
> they will have big balls of cotton wool in them :)

It's not that Dreamweaver is not a great program for many reasons. I have
DWMX2004 and I am not using it much. I find that the amount of system
resources it takes is not worth it. The one place I do agree with you on in
the templates/updating features of the program. The nice thing is if I want
to I can manually add the template code to the stuff I edit in Bluefish or
HTML-Kit and then use DW for the sitewide update.

It is a one tool wonder and for being so it is really hard to knock. But if
your bread and butter is 5 to 20 page sites or small informational sites it
eats so much system power it isn't worth it for me to use on a smaller
project. I can keep the code cleaner and since I will manually edit source
and css files I don't need a bunch of menus to do that.

The ideal app for me hasn't been developed yet. HTML-Kit is great but I have
switched to Linux (I don flame resistant suit now) and find that the only
thing I really miss is the template system.

My Choice at this time is Bluefish (http://bluefish.openoffice.nl) and
QuantaPlus for KDE. I can run these on a PIII600MHz faster than I could
dream of running DW on my AMDK7 1700 w/700+MB RAM. I do know that there is
a performance difference on Mac vs WindBlows but I have what I have.

Lets all just make great websites.

Jay Gilmore
minutes from the real Bluenose II.

Rick Pasotto

2005-01-14, 12:18 pm

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:08:28 -0000 in alt.html.critique, Nowhere wrote:
> Which is best, 'AceHTML 5', or 'Dreamweaver'.

What is the third option?

Perhaps you meant to ask which was *better*.

--
"There is no character, howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed
by ridicule, howsoever poor and witless."
-- Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)
Rick Pasotto rick@niof.net http://www.niof.net

Bluenose

2005-01-14, 12:18 pm

From: "Jay Gilmore" <noone@thisaddress.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.html.critique
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: best
>
> It's not that Dreamweaver is not a great program for many reasons. I have
> DWMX2004 and I am not using it much. I find that the amount of system
> resources it takes is not worth it. The one place I do agree with you on
in
> the templates/updating features of the program. The nice thing is if I
want
> to I can manually add the template code to the stuff I edit in Bluefish or
> HTML-Kit and then use DW for the sitewide update.
>

Well maybe I should agree with you here, it really depends on what you
create and people create different things with different tools and different
methods, as for the template issue I think you should look into server side
includes, you won't regret it.

Cheers

Bluenose

ps: Get a decent machine so you can use dreamweaver :)

Chris

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

"Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com> wrote in message
news:34pdtnF44ogqkU1@individual.net...
> de news: opskktk9ly6v6656@news.individual.net...

Netobjects is ok too, if you want design first code later. It can produce
half decent results.

Chris
FusionUser.com
www.fusionuser.com
$1000's Free Goodies for Fusion Users like you and me!
Sign up for the Free Fusion Life Newsletter

"Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com> wrote in message
news:34pdtnF44ogqkU1@individual.net...[color=darkred]
> de news: opskktk9ly6v6656@news.individual.net...
>
> Yes most definitely and also a "professional" web developer who creates
> "professional" web sites with a "professional" program, if you see
> anything
> wrong with that I will be all ears and would love to hear some of your
> view
> points.
>
> Fire away please.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bluenose.
>
>

Bluenose

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

It can produce
> half decent results.

Sounds great. Great post Chris.

;)

Cheers Bluenose

"Chris" <chris@dontspamme.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
cs95p5$tpu$1@news.ya.com...
> "Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com> wrote in message
> news:34pdtnF44ogqkU1@individual.net...
>
>
> Netobjects is ok too, if you want design first code later. It can produce
> half decent results.
>
> Chris
> FusionUser.com
> www.fusionuser.com
> $1000's Free Goodies for Fusion Users like you and me!
> Sign up for the Free Fusion Life Newsletter
>
>
> "Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com> wrote in message
> news:34pdtnF44ogqkU1@individual.net...
>
>

Samuël van Laere

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

"Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com> schreef in bericht
news:34n3htF4d5c1uU1@individual.net...
> Dreamweaver and if anybody can find a better program I am all ears but I
> they will have big balls of cotton wool in them :)
>

Only thing I use in Dreamweaver is the code formating function.
Does anyone know of some small application that is able to do nice code
formating on HTML?

Regards,
Samuël van Laere

kchayka

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

Chris wrote:
>
> Netobjects is ok too, if you want design first code later. It can produce
> half decent results.

Hmmm... Some time ago I gave NetObjects Fusion a trial. The generated
code was, IMO, even worse than FrontPage at it's worst.

Around that time I also came across a forum post about generated code
causing errors in Netscape 7. The (apparently official) response was
basically a recommendation to stop supporting any browser except IE.

Unless this product has had a major overhaul, nobody who cares anything
about quality or accessibility should recommend it.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Samuël van Laere

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

"Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com> schreef in bericht
news:34pdodF4f3c1aU1@individual.net...
> a écrit dans le message de news:
MPG.1c5106d1d285cd0098a384@news.alt.net...
>
>
> Good point but once again DIY comes a bit frustrating when developing
> professional sites, in any case, a good website............well you
> shouldn't be able to see which program the developer used. We all have our
> way's and I suppose it all boils down to what you want to achieve.
>

One can develop professional sites with just notepad,
it will only take a bit longer thats all :)

Regards,
Samuël van Laere

kchayka

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

get-it wrote:
>
> 60 page site. Dreamweaver. You update one page, the template, and it
> automatically updates all 60 pages instantly. You just can't beat that.
> Try updating 60 freaking pages, one by one.
>
> Does anyone know of any shareware or freeware, that can do this, or get
> around this?

Try a pre-processor.
<URL:http://html-faq.com/utilities/?htmlpreprocessor>

I've used the gtml pre-processor for several years now. Works great.
<URL:http://www.lifl.fr/~beaufils/gtml/>

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Bluenose

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

I only use notepad for graphics :)

Cheers Bluenose

"Samuël van Laere" <fortron@chello.nl> a écrit dans le message de news:
aiWFd.320629$lN.9434@amsnews05.chello.com...
> "Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com> schreef in bericht
> news:34pdodF4f3c1aU1@individual.net...
> MPG.1c5106d1d285cd0098a384@news.alt.net...
our[color=darkred]
>
> One can develop professional sites with just notepad,
> it will only take a bit longer thats all :)
>
> Regards,
> Samuël van Laere
>
>

CarolW.

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:22 +0100, "Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com>
wrote:

>de news: opskktk9ly6v6656@news.individual.net...
>
>Yes most definitely and also a "professional" web developer who creates
>"professional" web sites with a "professional" program, if you see anything
>wrong with that I will be all ears and would love to hear some of your view
>points.
>

I will go along with the notion it sounds impressive as a
"professional" to say they use DreamWeaver but, in my opinion, it
shouldn't make a difference what program was used - it's the end
result that counts; if someone can do it through DreamWeaver or one
[or a combination] of the free programs then they can do it through
whatever program of their choice may be. Either way - the person using
the program[s] needs to know what they are doing versus relying on the
program to "know" or "guess".

Not knocking DreamWeaver, mind you.

Carol

CarolW.

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:27:04 -0600, "get-it" <getit@getit.com> wrote:

>
>60 page site. Dreamweaver. You update one page, the template, and it
>automatically updates all 60 pages instantly. You just can't beat that.
>Try updating 60 freaking pages, one by one.

I can do that in HomeSite [v5] - either through the stylesheet or
"extended replace". One of my sites has over 200 pages and been
redesigned twice and using extend replace option to throw in the new
design on the existing contents in their now-former layout.

>Does anyone know of any shareware or freeware, that can do this, or get
>around this? NVU is making promises, teasing/tickling/...snaking, but I
>haven't seen one line of such work yet.
>
>I've heard that some "find and replace" software is capable, grabs all files
>in the folder, but I have yet to find that one either. Too, this route
>sounds unsafe, tricky, to me.

Nah, easy peasy and can be done quickly without pain once you know
what you are doing - which only takes a couple of times or so
tinkering with the option.

Carol

CarolW.

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:18:43 +0100, "Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com>
wrote:

>
>"Curt" <post@curt-balluff.de> a écrit dans le message de news:
>3fldu0hmjo1t3gp6c6n6s1q4q5vanr2la8@4ax.com...
>
>I'm sorry but I really think you should not post this sort of nonsense but
>then again I have no idea what sort of sites you create and you obviously
>are not a serious web developer.

One is only "serious" if they own a copy of DreamWeaver?

Hmmm. Well, then I guess anything I say won't be regarded as of any
worth since I don't own a copy of DW - and currently have no plans to
procurring a copy.

Carol

Bluenose

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

I agree, BUT as a professional you use a pro tool and you don't use a third
party whatever because you don't need too, I have ditched notepad now as I
don't have need for it. Code view in DW is better and maximises my workflow.
I really don't see how anybody could argue with that but I'm obviously
missing something and I am all ears, as I replied to Neal but he seems to
have gone fishing.

I don't want to sound harsh but the question in this thread was answered by
me, it's as simple as that and if anybody wants to start asking questions
because they want to learn and have an accurate answer (after all that is
why we are here) then people with no knowledge should shut up once the
question was answered. From there a thread can continue with personal
preferences etc and other input that might be of value for onlookers but if
someone posts a pile of crap then that person should either be told or not
post at all.

There is no argument as there cannot be an argument because DW is on it's
own when it comes to software for developing professional websites, I would
love to see someone develop a site with a backend of CF in notepad.

Oh and btw Coldfusion is the way to go as well.

I reckon you lot are starting to think I'm a freak who has shares in MM :)

Good vibes.

Bluenose

"CarolW." <from_you@nomail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
41e83da3.17094280@news.prodigy.net...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:22 +0100, "Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com>
> wrote:
>
anything[color=darkred]
view[color=darkred]
>
> I will go along with the notion it sounds impressive as a
> "professional" to say they use DreamWeaver but, in my opinion, it
> shouldn't make a difference what program was used - it's the end
> result that counts; if someone can do it through DreamWeaver or one
> [or a combination] of the free programs then they can do it through
> whatever program of their choice may be. Either way - the person using
> the program[s] needs to know what they are doing versus relying on the
> program to "know" or "guess".
>
> Not knocking DreamWeaver, mind you.
>
> Carol
>

Bluenose

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

What sort of stuff do you create? Do you use ssi? Do you use css-p? How do
you assume workflow? What sort of crap do you create is what I'm asking.
Don't post crap it really wastes time and space and can confuse people who
are new and want good advice.

Learn to read correctly through a thread and post back with any decent
remarks or comments.

Cheers

Bluenose

"CarolW." <from_you@nomail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
41e8408f.17842241@news.prodigy.net...[color=darkred]
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:18:43 +0100, "Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com>
> wrote:
>
but[color=darkred]
>
> One is only "serious" if they own a copy of DreamWeaver?
>
> Hmmm. Well, then I guess anything I say won't be regarded as of any
> worth since I don't own a copy of DW - and currently have no plans to
> procurring a copy.
>
> Carol

Bluenose

2005-01-14, 7:18 pm

Hi Duede

No not at all, basically you control layout with css-p which stands for
cascading style sheet positioning. Everything on your page or pages is laid
out by an external css file which holds the nuts and bolts to what you see
in a browser. In your code you won't need to have an image or even a width
for example and the beauty is the heights, you can control them.

It is a bit daunting to start as many people use absolute positioning which
is like the plague, you should let the page contents flow in other words. If
you have no idea about css-p then I suggest you start getting to grips with
it. Do a Google for "css-p tutorials" and you will have a wealth of info,
most of it basic but once you understand how divs flow you can create sites
that use the same code yet look completely different. Go for it, you won't
be disappointed.

Good luck

Bluenose.

"Duende" <usenet@wipkip.biz> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns95DE9977D4D88httpwipkipbiz@130.133.1.4...
> While sitting in a puddle Bluenose scribbled in the mud:
>
>
> What's that? Same as just plain old css?
>
> --
> D?
> http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

kchayka

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

Bluenose wrote:
>
> I don't want to sound harsh but the question in this thread was answered by
> me, it's as simple as that ...

Um, you gave your opinion on a question. There is no "ultimate truth" to
what is the best development software. Whatever works best for you is
the best for you, but it doesn't mean it's the best, period.

> people with no knowledge should shut up once the
> question was answered.

Welcome to usenet. Folks are going to post whatever they want whenever
they want. Deal with it.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

kchayka

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

Samuël van Laere wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of some small application that is able to do nice code
> formating on HTML?

Try Tidy
<URL:http://tidy.sourceforge.net/>

There's a GIU for Windows available, too, coincidentally called TidyGUI.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

kchayka

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

Bluenose wrote:
>
> In your code you won't need to have an image or even a width
> for example and the beauty is the heights, you can control them.

pssst. You have no control. It's just an illusion.

> If
> you have no idea about css-p then I suggest you start getting to grips with
> it.

pssst. Nobody calls it css-p any more.

BTW, I'd say the regulars in this group probably know more about CSS
than you do, though I can't say for sure since I don't recall you
providing any examples of your work.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Audry Glamour

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

In article <34r335F4cdb66U1@individual.net>,
"Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com> wrote:

> Hi Duede

Duende had asked if css-p was just plain old css...

> No not at all,

But the explanation didn't show how it is different.

> Do a Google for "css-p tutorials" and you will have a wealth of info,

I did, on that exact string. I got a wealth of four hits. Couldn't find
the answer, although one of the sites referred to 4.0 iterations of NN
and IE, so it was probably a little dated.

Could you point me to someplace where I could get a better grip on how
css-p is "not at all" the same as plain old css?

thx!

Ta!

Audry

Duende

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

While sitting in a puddle Bluenose scribbled in the mud:

> Hi Duede
>
> No not at all, basically you control layout with css-p which stands for
> cascading style sheet positioning. Everything on your page or pages is
> laid out by an external css file which holds the nuts and bolts to what
> you see in a browser. In your code you won't need to have an image or
> even a width for example and the beauty is the heights, you can control
> them.
>
> It is a bit daunting to start as many people use absolute positioning
> which is like the plague, you should let the page contents flow in other
> words. If you have no idea about css-p then I suggest you start getting
> to grips with it. Do a Google for "css-p tutorials" and you will have a
> wealth of info, most of it basic but once you understand how divs flow
> you can create sites that use the same code yet look completely
> different. Go for it, you won't be disappointed.
>
>
> Good luck
>
>
> Bluenose.

Thanks, I'll look into it. Now I use div's & css with a bit of html (h1...)
stuff.

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

Duende

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

While sitting in a puddle Duende scribbled in the mud:

> Thanks, I'll look into it.

came up with "Center for the Study of Social Policy"

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

CarolW.

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:55:25 +0100, "Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com>
wrote:

>What sort of stuff do you create?

Web sites and pages for those sites. ;)

> Do you use ssi?

Depends. Last time I looked using server side includes wasn't required
all the time.

> Do you use css-p?

I generally use CSS v2. But I will admit that I am not obsessed or
limited with pixel perfect positioning thoughts for everything I do.

> How do you assume workflow?

I just work. *shrug*

> What sort of crap do you create is what I'm asking.

Is this supposed to be some kind of a cue for me to say "owie"?

Kind of silly to try to insult me or my work just because I shared
that I don't use DW or have a copy of it on my side. I didn't knock
the program - just don't own a copy of it.

You may indeed create some nice looking sites, I don't know but I am
willing to give benefit of the doubt that you may indeed regardless of
what you use in creating them with; which is more than you were
willing to cast my way based on, from what I can ascertain, nothing
but just hoping that you somehow managed to 'hit below the belt'.

The only thing I can say, in terms of crap, the sites I work on lack
is needing a copy of a particular editor/program to tweak/add new
content to the pages. The pages degrades nicely for non-graphical
browsers or if the style sheet is ignored - looks similar, if not
identical, in FF, Opera v7, and/or IE v5+ - can be read in PDAs
without problem. A minor thing but people can resize the text and not
have things "fall apart" if they do.

If that makes them "crap" then, oh well, I will still sleep ok tonight
and won't deter me from firing up HomeSite [which is a Macromedia
product, if brand name means _some_thing _some_how, when I work on
stuff over here on my side.

[snip]
>Learn to read correctly through a thread and post back with any decent
>remarks or comments.

Or how about I just post when I feel like posting, which isn't all the
time anyway, and you can opt to disregard or regard anything I share?
If that isn't good enough - then I suppose you can just ignore me
altogether. But let's not play the game of you trying to hint or tell
me when I can or cannot post, ok? As you might be able to tell by now
- I don't give such "requests" any consideration; so really pointless
even trying to share them my way.

I am not assuming that everyone reading or participating in this group
is/hoping to become a "professional" web developer or web designer.
Some people asking about an editor or whatever may not be entertaining
the notion of becoming either of the two thoughts but asking for
opinionS.

Either way, trying to belittle me isn't really helping the folks new
or wishing to learn more - so I politely ignored your first jab toward
me in this thread but thought, since you felt that I needed another,
to letting you know that if you really want to help share information
and advice to others - sharing non-informative posts in hopes of
trying to belittle me or others isn't helping toward that goal on your
side. *shrug*

Carol

Duende

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

While sitting in a puddle CarolW. scribbled in the mud:

> HomeSite [which is a Macromedia
> product,

Not my version. :o)

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

CarolW.

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

On 15 Jan 2005 01:28:30 GMT, Duende <usenet@wipkip.biz> wrote:

>While sitting in a puddle CarolW. scribbled in the mud:
>
>
>Not my version. :o)

Allaire's version was nice too; I had upgraded from it - hence the v5
with a different brand name on my side. I have no complaints about the
proggie.

Carol

get-it

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

> Perhaps you meant to ask which was *better*.
>

Hi All,

DIY (do it yourself) is for one-liner 50-row home pages. I'll check out
all recommended items; the pre-processor and the "extended replace",
immediately.

Of coarse, another solution to simplify is frames or an iframe.

It's funny, now, looking back. I never read instructions. When I first
acquired Dreamweaver, I built the first 60 page site with frames. I never
did setup the site controls, nor a template, never even knew that existed.
Dreamweaver instantly updates entire site, finds all broken links, all
orphaned links, the whole 9 yards, instantly, automatically. Even makes sure
that all files are in the working folders.

THANKS KCHAYKA AND CAROL!!!!!!

get-it

get-it

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

> Try Tidy
> <URL:http://tidy.sourceforge.net/>
>
> There's a GIU for Windows available, too, coincidentally called TidyGUI.

Hi,
I downloaded and installed this a few days ago, and have yet to find a
good description of it's use. Just checks and cleans html? It's not win
based, but is an exe file, run from a command prompt. I'm wondering what
all tricks this monster is capable of. Any clues?
Thanks,
get-it

Duende

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

While sitting in a puddle CarolW. scribbled in the mud:

> Allaire's version was nice too; I had upgraded from it - hence the v5

I tried v5 but like 4.5 a bit better. Also didn't want to pay for v5.

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

get-it

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

> dream of running DW on my AMDK7 1700 w/700+MB RAM. I do know that there is
> a performance difference on Mac vs WindBlows but I have what I have.
> Jay Gilmore

Jay,
I've heard that MX is tricky, but what ram are you running? 32mb? It runs
like control panel for me.

DW checks finds/fixxes all broken links, exposes all orphaned (abandoned)
unlinked files, makes sure your graphics and linked files are in the rite
folders, writes the URL paths correctly every single time, etc?

Bluefish is for Linux. I looked at the features. It's about equal with
NVU (mozilla/netscape, also available for Linux). It does have
find/replace, but no site templates (dwt), no site-wide updating, no "find
broken links", no "find orphaned file tracking controls".

get-it

kchayka

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

Duende wrote:
> While sitting in a puddle CarolW. scribbled in the mud:
>
>
> I tried v5 but like 4.5 a bit better. Also didn't want to pay for v5.

Didn't want to spend $30 for the upgrade, eh?

BTW, I think v5 is better than 4.x.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Duende

2005-01-14, 11:16 pm

While sitting in a puddle kchayka scribbled in the mud:

> BTW, I think v5 is better than 4.x.

How so?

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

Bluenose

2005-01-15, 7:17 am

Hi Carol

I did sound harsh, please excuse me and my rant :)

Download the trial and have a look, try creating a css-p page and you will
see the power it has. You don't need to go overboard just give it a try and
I'm sure you will benefit.

Cheers

Bluenose.

"CarolW." <from_you@nomail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
41e8542b.22863430@news.prodigy.net...[color=darkred]
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:55:25 +0100, "Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Web sites and pages for those sites. ;)
>

Bluenose

2005-01-15, 7:17 am

LOL :)

Here are a few in no particular order:

http://glish.com/css/
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx...weaver/css.html
http://www.websitetips.com/css/index.shtml#cssp
http://www.dreamweaverfever.com/soap/turningthetables/

Okay Dreamweaver is dominant again but even if you don't have the program
you will learn from the above links and the links from those pages.

--
Cheers Bluenose

"Duende" <usenet@wipkip.biz> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns95DEAC7E6DA78httpwipkipbiz@130.133.1.4...
> While sitting in a puddle Duende scribbled in the mud:
>
>
> came up with "Center for the Study of Social Policy"
>
> --
> D?
> http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

Curt

2005-01-15, 7:17 am

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:18:43 +0100, "Bluenose" <dunno@dunno.com>
wrote:

>I'm sorry but I really think you should not post this sort of nonsense but
>then again I have no idea what sort of sites you create and you obviously
>are not a serious web developer. [...]

Uh. You aren't very polite, are you?

Curt

Bluenose

2005-01-15, 12:18 pm

Dreamweaver and if anybody can find a better program I am all ears but I
they will have big balls of cotton wool in them :)

Curt

2005-01-15, 12:18 pm

On 13 Jan 2005 19:01:09 GMT, Duende <usenet@wipkip.biz> wrote:

> HTML-Kit

I agree
That's what I use too

Chami is great.

Greetings from good old Germany
Curt

Duende

2005-01-15, 7:20 pm

While sitting in a puddle Bluenose scribbled in the mud:

> LOL :)
>
> Here are a few in no particular order:

But they are all just about css (no -p).

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

Audry Glamour

2005-01-15, 7:20 pm

In article <Xns95DF589EF9F71httpwipkipbiz@130.133.1.4>,
Duende <usenet@wipkip.biz> wrote:

> While sitting in a puddle Bluenose scribbled in the mud:

(List of css sites snipped)
[color=darkred]
> But they are all just about css (no -p).

So do you suppose there's no difference between css and css-p? What do
you think?

I wish Bluenose would clarify that previous "not at all" statement (when
asked if they were the same thing).

Always trying to improve my css skills...

Audry

Duende

2005-01-15, 7:20 pm

While sitting in a puddle Audry Glamour scribbled in the mud:

> So do you suppose there's no difference between css and css-p? What do
> you think?

only difference i see is in the spelling. ;)

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

Jsp

2005-01-15, 7:20 pm

Nowhere wrote:
> Which is best, 'AceHTML 5', or 'Dreamweaver'.
>
>
Given the choise between AceHTML 5 and Dreamweaver i'd go for TSW-Webcoder5.

Jsp

get-it

2005-01-15, 7:20 pm

> >
> Given the choise between AceHTML 5 and Dreamweaver i'd go for
TSW-Webcoder5.
> Jsp

Hi,

Webcoder? I couldn't find anything really tempting so I downloaded. It
does have what's called a wysiwyg "quick editor", but this feature brings up
a "messy code" warning screen.

I do not even want to look at the code, except to cut/paste, or
verify/edit.

1st: Dreamweaver
2nd: Mozilla Composer
3rd: OpenOffice HTML

get-it

Bluenose

2005-01-15, 7:20 pm

Use tables guys. Nested if possible and then nested tables within nested
tables.

css-p does not give this option but I am sure you will cope.

Good luck

Bluenose

"Duende" <usenet@wipkip.biz> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns95DF6A7D666Ahttpwipkipbiz@130.133.1.4...
> While sitting in a puddle Audry Glamour scribbled in the mud:
>
>
> only difference i see is in the spelling. ;)
>
> --
> D?
> http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

Duende

2005-01-15, 7:20 pm

While sitting in a puddle Bluenose scribbled in the mud:

> Use tables guys. Nested if possible and then nested tables within nested
> tables.
>
> css-p does not give this option but I am sure you will cope.
>
> Good luck
>
>
Come on now, I see no difference between css and css-p. If there is I really
would like to know.

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

kchayka

2005-01-15, 7:20 pm

[re: Dreamweaver]

Bluenose wrote:
>
> Download the trial and have a look, try creating a css-p page and you will
> see the power it has. You don't need to go overboard just give it a try and
> I'm sure you will benefit.

I downloaded the trial and toyed a bit editing some pages that had been
hand coded using structured, semantic HTML4 Strict and CSS layouts. I
have no use for a so-called WYSIWYG editor, and hand-coding in DW was no
faster or better than other text editors. It's just more complicated.

As for other features...
- I can edit stylesheets much faster by hand coding than using the DW
windows.
- I already use CVS for version control.
- My usual editors[1] have project control, extended search/replace,
syntax highlighting, macros support and other useful features.
- I have some PERL scripts that let me make custom templates quickly.

[1] HomeSite and Crimson Editor, which one I use depends on the task.

Sorry, but I can't find any real benefit to using DW.

BTW, I found this in the accompanying "Using DW" doc:
"Dreamweaver lets you create layers on your page easily and position
them precisely."

I hope this is not the css-p feature you've been raving about. This
"layer" thing is merely a disaster waiting to happen. I watched in
horror as DW inserted a DIV containing just text and absolutely
positioned it at specific pixel coordinates. Anything that tries to make
a pixel-perfect layout is doomed to failure. I challenge you to show me
a case where it is not.

And if you're going to keep hanging around this ng, would you please
follow the accepted posting conventions and quit top posting?
<URL:http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post>

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Audry Glamour

2005-01-15, 11:18 pm

In article <Xns95DF946868F6Ehttpwipkipbiz@130.133.1.4>,
Duende <usenet@wipkip.biz> wrote:

> Come on now, I see no difference between css and css-p. If there is I really
> would like to know.

<Wink wink nudge> css-p = troll

Audry

kchayka

2005-01-15, 11:18 pm

Duende wrote:
>
> Come on now, I see no difference between css and css-p. If there is I really
> would like to know.

"CSS-P" is a buzz term for CSS positioning, which is nothing more than a
subset of CSS 2, covering floats, postioning, and the box model. I think
the term was used when CSS 2 came out in an effort to promote using CSS
for layouts.

Nobody except Bluenose uses the term any more. It's just CSS.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Duende

2005-01-15, 11:18 pm

While sitting in a puddle Audry Glamour scribbled in the mud:

> In article <Xns95DF946868F6Ehttpwipkipbiz@130.133.1.4>,
> Duende <usenet@wipkip.biz> wrote:
>
>
> <Wink wink nudge> css-p = troll
>
> Audry

I would like to hear Bluenose's take on this. Not yet convenced he is a
troll. RtS is quite enough.

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

Jay Gilmore

2005-01-15, 11:18 pm

get-it wrote:

Out of context quote here, I said " My Choice at this time is Bluefish
(http://bluefish.openoffice.nl) and QuantaPlus for KDE. I can run these on
a PIII600MHz faster than I could dream of running DW on my AMDK7 1700
w/700+MB RAM. I do know that there is a performance difference on Mac vs
WindBlows but I have what I have."
[color=darkred]
> I've heard that MX is tricky, but what ram are you running? 32mb? It
> runs
> like control panel for me.
Note that I have an AMD K7 running 700+MB on the system that I am running
Dreamweaver on. It is not as memory intensive as say photoshop but is quite
a typical pig on a windblows system. DW runs faster on Mac from what I
understand. It is not Macromedia but MicroSlut who makes a bloated OS. Even
running what I consider the fastest most stable version Windows 2000, I
still find it a molasses adventure.

> DW checks finds/fixxes all broken links, exposes all orphaned (abandoned)
> unlinked files, makes sure your graphics and linked files are in the rite
> folders, writes the URL paths correctly every single time, etc?
True the helper batch tools are great and cannot be found elswhere with the
same power.
>
> Bluefish is for Linux.
Yes.
> I looked at the features. It's about equal with
> NVU (mozilla/netscape, also available for Linux).
I like Bluefish better and it will soon be over the 1.0 hurdle and be
focusing in on plugins and multilanguage platforms. It is not trying to be
DW.
> It does have
> find/replace, but no site templates (dwt), no site-wide updating, no
> "find broken links", no "find orphaned file tracking controls".
Thats why I still own DW. I just prefer doing all the grunt work in a faster
more sleek editor.

WHat I don't like is all the extra crap and reliance on the DW javascript
and messy code. I would rather build clean code and do the maintanence and
sync in DW since it politely leaves my code alone.

Jay.

Creativearts

2005-01-16, 1:04 am

quote:
Originally posted by Nowhere
Which is best, 'AceHTML 5', or 'Dreamweaver'.

Dreamweaver i use notepad

Bluenose

2005-01-16, 7:14 am

"kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> a écrit dans le message de news:
34tm9uF4f4gsoU1@individual.net...
> [re: Dreamweaver]

>
> BTW, I found this in the accompanying "Using DW" doc:
> "Dreamweaver lets you create layers on your page easily and position
> them precisely."
>
> I hope this is not the css-p feature you've been raving about. This
> "layer" thing is merely a disaster waiting to happen. I watched in
> horror as DW inserted a DIV containing just text and absolutely
> positioned it at specific pixel coordinates. Anything that tries to make
> a pixel-perfect layout is doomed to failure. I challenge you to show me
> a case where it is not.
>

Insert Layer should be treated like the plague, it's just a silly feature
such as the draw table thing. I don't know why these features are there and
a newbie would certainly start using them and then suffer the consequences.

Anything that tries to make
> a pixel-perfect layout is doomed to failure.

Are you nut's, why would a pixel-perfect layout fail? Go and take a look at
zen garden and get back to me.

Bluenose

2005-01-16, 7:14 am

"> >
> Anything that tries to make
>
> Are you nut's, why would a pixel-perfect layout fail? Go and take a look
at
> zen garden and get back to me.
>
>
[color=darkred]
> Anything that tries to make

Are you talking absolute positioning? I never use it, don't need to and I
would not recommend anyone did.

Neal

2005-01-16, 7:22 pm

Bluenose <dunno@dunno.com> wrote:

> Are you talking absolute positioning? I never use it, don't need to
> and I
> would not recommend anyone did.

Huh? Is this a blanket statement? Absolute positioning can be
accomplished without problems in modern browsers.

Bluenose

2005-01-16, 7:22 pm

It creates havoc when you enlarge text, in any case I don't see why anyone
would want to use absolute positioning. Content and layout should flow,
that's if you know how to create a pleasing site that works.

There could be times when you could use absolute positioning, it really
depends on the content or non within the division.

de news: opskpcnws66v6656@news.individual.net...
> Bluenose <dunno@dunno.com> wrote:
>
>
> Huh? Is this a blanket statement? Absolute positioning can be
> accomplished without problems in modern browsers.

Neal

2005-01-16, 7:22 pm

Bluenose <dunno@dunno.com> wrote:

> It creates havoc when you enlarge text, in any case I don't see why
> anyone
> would want to use absolute positioning. Content and layout should
> flow,
> that's if you know how to create a pleasing site that works.
>
> There could be times when you could use absolute positioning, it
> really
> depends on the content or non within the division.

It must be done intelligently, that's for sure. But it can work, it
just needs careful attention to those factors you mention.

Bluenose

2005-01-16, 7:22 pm

de news: opskpkybsw6v6656@news.individual.net...
> Bluenose <dunno@dunno.com> wrote:
>
>
> It must be done intelligently, that's for sure. But it can work, it
> just needs careful attention to those factors you mention.

Hi Neal,

I understand where you are coming from but for the life of me I wouldn't
want to position something absolutely, it would depend on a certain layout
but those certain layouts are to be avoided. One big problem with DW is the
insert layer command, they are absolutely positioned divisions and newbies
tend to create a layout with them and when finished they post a site check
or go round to their uncles house only to find the site is all out of
position. As I said earlier, the insert layer thing should be treated like
the plague, I would also recommend to anyone who uses tables and wants to
move over to positioning elements with css that they take care and take time
to look into how you should create a site this way, don't just jump in as
they will get frustrated and probably go back to tables because they
couldn't understand why the left content of their layout shoots down the
page etc.

It is a far better method and has only plus points, tables will no longer be
used soon, I'm sure of that and it's only browser support that ties us down
to completely getting rid of tables. My most recent sites have been
pixel-perfect (design wise) and they work like a treat
cross-browser/platform, as for Netscape 4 plus I just import a css file. I'm
now in a muddle trying to understand many accessibility conflicts from
various resources, but that's another matter and would be a great thread
here, even if the place is meant to be for html critics. What about using
the onkeypress event in anchors?

Cheers

Bluenose.

kchayka

2005-01-16, 11:17 pm

Bluenose wrote:
> "kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 34tm9uF4f4gsoU1@individual.net...
>
>
> Are you nut's, why would a pixel-perfect layout fail? Go and take a look at
> zen garden and get back to me.

Go and take a look at zen garden with text zoomed to at least 150%,
which is the minimum text size I need there most of the time. Stoopid
deezyners and their stoopid microfonts. On some of those layouts, even
150% isn't enough, "Urban" for example.

Many of those designs do quite poorly. "Urban" at 200% zoom is a mess.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

kchayka

2005-01-16, 11:17 pm

Bluenose wrote:
>
> My most recent sites have been
> pixel-perfect (design wise) and they work like a treat
> cross-browser/platform,

If the layout does not adapt gracefully to the visitor overriding the
text size, then it surely does not work a treat. Zoom text and see for
yourself.

If the layout does adapt gracefully, then it is not a pixel-perfect design.

Your statement has an error in it, I just don't know exactly what that is.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Spartanicus

2005-01-16, 11:17 pm

kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote:

>Go and take a look at zen garden with text zoomed to at least 150%,
>which is the minimum text size I need there most of the time. Stoopid
>deezyners and their stoopid microfonts. On some of those layouts, even
>150% isn't enough, "Urban" for example.

Don't forget stoopid users who set their screen area to for example
1600x1200 when they have a 19" CRT that only has about 1300x990 pixels
available on the screen, causing information to be lost. These stoopid
users then mistakenly believe that they are running at 120PPI
"resolution", whereas in actual fact resolution is a fixed physical
property of CRT displays.

--
Spartanicus

2005-01-16, 11:17 pm

"Spartanicus" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message

> Don't forget stoopid users who set their screen area to for example
> 1600x1200 when they have a 19" CRT that only has about 1300x990 pixels
> available on the screen, causing information to be lost.

Rubbish. I have exactly that setup, except it's a 17" screen at 1600x1280
and I can see *every* pixel. There is no information loss whatsoever.

These stoopid
> users then mistakenly believe that they are running at 120PPI
> "resolution",

I *am*. Well, its actually about 110 pixels per inch. (1600 pixels / 14.5
inches).

whereas in actual fact resolution is a fixed physical
> property of CRT displays.

No it is not. It *is* a fixed physical property of LCD displays but not CRT
displays.

You might be thinking of the shadowmask size which basically determines the
smallest size for a pixel. Other than that I can not think of anything that
would limit a screen to 1300x900 pixels.

--
Cheers
Richard.

kchayka

2005-01-16, 11:17 pm

Spartanicus wrote:
> kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote:
>
>
> Don't forget stoopid users who set their screen area to for example
> 1600x1200 when they have a 19" CRT that only has about 1300x990 pixels
> available on the screen,

Perhaps your hardware has such limitations. That doesn't mean all do.
Or perhaps you are more comfortable working with a lower resolution.
That doesn't mean everyone else has to.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Bluenose

2005-01-17, 7:16 am

"kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> a écrit dans le message de news:
350em6F4ggq79U1@individual.net...
> Bluenose wrote:
>
> If the layout does not adapt gracefully to the visitor overriding the
> text size, then it surely does not work a treat. Zoom text and see for
> yourself.
>
> If the layout does adapt gracefully, then it is not a pixel-perfect
design.
>
> Your statement has an error in it, I just don't know exactly what that is.
>

Lets say I have seven divisions, three for text, two for Navs and two for
images. I'd wrap em, make the two image divs pixel perfect and the rest
would flow. Not sideways btw. I sound of explained clearer.

Spartanicus

2005-01-17, 7:16 am

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote:

>
>Rubbish. I have exactly that setup, except it's a 17" screen at 1600x1280
>and I can see *every* pixel. There is no information loss whatsoever.
>
> These stoopid
>
>I *am*. Well, its actually about 110 pixels per inch. (1600 pixels / 14.5
>inches).
>
>whereas in actual fact resolution is a fixed physical
>
>No it is not. It *is* a fixed physical property of LCD displays but not CRT
>displays.

I should have been more specific by stating that the *maximum*
resolution of a display is a fixed physical property of the device.

>You might be thinking of the shadowmask size which basically determines the
>smallest size for a pixel. Other than that I can not think of anything that
>would limit a screen to 1300x900 pixels.

Unless you know of CRT monitors that don't use fosfor dots and a mask,
you've just confirmed that I'm right.

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus

2005-01-17, 7:16 am

kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote:

>
>Perhaps your hardware has such limitations. That doesn't mean all do.

Make and type of your monitor?

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus

2005-01-17, 7:16 am

Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Unless you know of CRT monitors that don't use fosfor dots and a mask,
>you've just confirmed that I'm right.

Preempting clever dick answers, that should have read "colour CRT
monitors" :-)

--
Spartanicus

2005-01-17, 7:16 am

"Spartanicus" <me@privacy.net> wrote

> Unless you know of CRT monitors that don't use fosfor

phosphor is actually the correct word

> dots and a mask,
> you've just confirmed that I'm right.

Then please explain how I am reading this window, as I type in this text. It
is on said 17" monitor, at 1600x1280 pixels.

By your assertion this monitor should only be capable of displaying 1300
pixels horizontally and so I should not be able to read it.

Well I am here to tell you that I see absolutely no problems at all with my
display.

Perhaps you have tried to drive one of those 1175 dot displays too far, the
cheap ones with .27mm shadow mask pitch.

--
Cheers
Richard.

Spartanicus

2005-01-17, 12:18 pm

"rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote:

>
>phosphor is actually the correct word

Not in my native language.

>
>Then please explain how I am reading this window, as I type in this text. It
>is on said 17" monitor, at 1600x1280 pixels.
>
>By your assertion this monitor should only be capable of displaying 1300
>pixels horizontally and so I should not be able to read it.

Driving a monitor beyond its capabilities results in diminished quality,
it does not have to result in unreadable text, especially since users
can compensate for the configuration error by increasing the font size.
The latter is a contributing factor to encountering microfonts.

>Well I am here to tell you that I see absolutely no problems at all with my
>display.
>
>Perhaps you have tried to drive one of those 1175 dot displays too far, the
>cheap ones with .27mm shadow mask pitch.

Dot pitch ranges between about .24mm and .36mm, and the dot pitch value
only reflects the size of a 3 colour pixel, it does not include the
unused space between the pixels, and that is what counts.

--
Spartanicus

2005-01-17, 12:18 pm

"Spartanicus" <me@privacy.net> wrote

A load of largely worthless and sometimes incorrect crap.

plonk...

Duende

2005-01-17, 12:18 pm

Jsp

2005-01-17, 12:18 pm

Nowhere wrote:
> Which is best, 'AceHTML 5', or 'Dreamweaver'.
>
>
Given the choise between AceHTML 5 and Dreamweaver i'd go for TSW-Webcoder5.

Jsp

Duende

2005-01-17, 12:18 pm

Duende

2005-01-17, 7:18 pm

While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:

> Well I am here to tell you that I see absolutely no problems at all with my
> display.

You did when you looked at something I did. :)

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

kchayka

2005-01-17, 7:18 pm

Spartanicus wrote:
>
> Make and type of your monitor?

It's irrelevant. I have no intention of lowering my screen size because
somebody tells me I shouldn't be doing it. I've been doing this for
years and have had no problems whatsoever except with poorly designed
web sites. BTW, per the manufacturer's specs, this 19-inch monitor could
go higher than 1600x1200 but the refresh rate then becomes unacceptable.
I'm happy with it as is. It's perfect for my particular needs.

Of course, if you want to buy me a larger monitor, then I'm all ears. :)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Bluenose

2005-01-18, 7:18 am

Spartanicus

2005-01-18, 12:19 pm

kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote:

>
>It's irrelevant. I have no intention of lowering my screen size because
>somebody tells me I shouldn't be doing it. I've been doing this for
>years and have had no problems whatsoever except with poorly designed
>web sites. BTW, per the manufacturer's specs, this 19-inch monitor could
>go higher than 1600x1200 but the refresh rate then becomes unacceptable.

There are 2 different properties: screen area and resolution. The 2 are
only the same up to a certain point for colour CRTs.

Take a magnifying glass and look at a colour CRT's screen with a white
image on it, you'll see that it consists of a grid of RGB phosphor dots
or pixels. The granularity of the pixels is expressed as pixels/dots per
inch, this physical property of the CRT restricts the maximum
*resolution* you can get from a given colour CRT monitor. The monitor's
electronics (video bandwidth and hor/ver frequency) typically far exceed
the maximum resolution of the CRT. Although pushing it to value beyond
what the CRT can display will result in an increase in the *screen
area*, it will not result in a higher *resolution*. Doing this will in
fact result in information being lost.

For some aspects of the display you can compensate for this loss, for
example by specifying a bigger OS UI font, and by zooming the content of
your browser's viewport, but it remains a fundamental configuration
error that results in information being lost.

>Of course, if you want to buy me a larger monitor, then I'm all ears. :)

I like those (PC compatible) Apple cinema panels, 20", 23" and 30".

Virtually all specifications of computer monitors, reviews etc get the
resolution/screen area terminology wrong, the Apple cinema displays are
no exception, although the documentation does mention the actual
resolution (100PPI), in most places the Apple specs liberally blabber on
about "resolutions" of 1920x1200.

--
Spartanicus

Bluenose

2005-01-18, 11:23 pm

de news: pan.2005.01.18.19.49.02.869484@go.away.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:35:30 +0100, Bluenose wrote:
>
>
> http://aa-project.sourceforge.net/aalib/
>
> --

LOL

That is fab :)

--
Cheers Bluenose

Curt

2005-01-18, 11:23 pm

Starshine Moonbeam

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

get-it

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

get-it

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

Virginia

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

get-it

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

Neal

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

Bluenose <dunno@dunno.com> wrote:

> Dreamweaver and if anybody can find a better program I am all ears
> but I
> they will have big balls of cotton wool in them :)

Openminded, aren't we?

Bluenose

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

Bluenose

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

Bluenose

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

Jay Gilmore

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

Rick Pasotto

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

Bluenose

2005-01-19, 4:22 am

Spartanicus

2005-01-19, 12:20 pm

"Spartanicus" <me@privacy.net> wrote

A load of largely worthless and sometimes incorrect crap.

plonk...

Bluenose

2005-01-20, 12:22 pm

Duende

2005-01-20, 12:22 pm

While sitting in a puddle Bluenose scribbled in the mud:

> LOL :)
>
> Here are a few in no particular order:

But they are all just about css (no -p).

--
D?
http://wipkip.biz just to raise my PR

Jsp

2005-01-20, 12:22 pm

Nowhere wrote:
> Which is best, 'AceHTML 5', or 'Dreamweaver'.
>
>
Given the choise between AceHTML 5 and Dreamweaver i'd go for TSW-Webcoder5.

Jsp

Bluenose

2005-01-20, 12:22 pm

Duende

2005-01-20, 12:22 pm

kchayka

2005-01-20, 12:22 pm

Duende

2005-01-20, 12:22 pm

Audry Glamour

2005-01-20, 12:22 pm

In article <Xns95DF946868F6Ehttpwipkipbiz@130.133.1.4>,
Duende <usenet@wipkip.biz> wrote:

> Come on now, I see no difference between css and css-p. If there is I really