yechi yisrael

[Log in to get rid of this advertisement]

I used Arachnophilia for a while, now I just use the gnome gedit editor for HTML and CSS.


Yechi Yisrael.

Tinkster

As far as I'm concerned web-development and
WYSIWYG are mutually exclusive, even though one
can enforce many things with CSS these days.

If my browser forces a different font your page
won't look what you think it should be, anyway,
so - what's the point? Try to think "sensible"
and "portable" (cater for people who are vision
impaired, or people who don't have that 1280x
960 resolution you had in mind when designing).

And do that with plain tools that generate slick
HTML that will load quickly on a wonky modem, too.

Oh, and I use vim/emacs ...


Cheers,
Tink

onebuck

Hi,

Good reference point! My needs are to keep things simple along with making the pages visually pleasing not cluttered. I really use a editor then publish the pages. I just want to experiment with other web author tools. Garnish information about what others are using to work on pages both professionally and personally.

I've tried Nvu, but find it has shortfalls. I downloaded Quanta+ but have not installed yet too allow a test session.

Your point about visually impaired is a important but generally ignored rule of thought. I will keep that in mind for future reference.

gnashley

I sometimes use the mozilla composer which is mostly the same code as nvu. But I usually only use it with scarefully selected templates which provide very simple and generic code which can be correctly displayed with dillo. I check everything against mozilla/firefox, opera and dillo. That means no tables or other weird stuff.
But I also use whatever editor is at hand, such as erwin and sometimes bluefish.
I use wysiwyg because I just want to get it done fast and not fancy -I hate writing web-pages.

hitest

My websites are very spartan and simple so a text editor like Kate or gedit works for me. I do like Quanta Plus:-)

Hendronicus

Quanta Plus for the big stuff, Kate for the little things, and Nedit if I'm in a real hurry. Mozilla Composer isn't bad for simple text-based sites.

Basslord1124

Quanta looks nice but I have never used it. I usually stick with bluefish.

MicahCarrick

I had a few problems with Bluefish in the past. I use gedit. It seems limited at first, however, once you enable some plug-ins, it's quite effective. And it's VERY stable which is key for me. I use the file manager pane plugin (configured GnomeVFS to enable FTP writing), snippets library plugin, external tools to validate and format PHP and HTML, and a few other small things. It works great for what I do which is mostly PHP, HTML, CSS, Javascript, and the occasional Ruby or RoR (there's a plugin to make it work like text mate on mac).

When I have more time I'll be writing an article outlining all the ways to get gedit customized for use as a web developers editor.

I spent a lot of time trying various tools for web development when I switched to Linux. I wrote an article on some of my findings: Web Development in Linux (GNOME)

sadiqdm

Quanta Plus is the nearest I've got to using a WYSIWYG. I did try Dreamweaver a long time ago but I don't like the way it makes the code.

I like to keep my HTML tidy and use CSS a lot. Using the F6 key I can get an immediate preview, and if you must see your changes as they happen, it has a split screen VPL+Source mode which seems to do that. I keep snippets of code for re-use in a separate file for each website, and usually build a template first, and then modify that as I go along.

I tried Nvu but didn't like it. Can't remember why.

Bluefish looks good, but I haven't had a chance to try it properly. I got put off by it not having a built in preview mode.

H_TeXMeX_H

Of course you could just use FF to preview it, just click the refresh button whenever you want to see what it looks like. (yeah, I know it's low tech solution, it must be integrated)