[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 20:20, Neil Williams wrote:
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 7:56 pm, John Palmer wrote:I don't use dreamweaver, but the the people I know that do produce html that doesn't satisfy the W3C validator, and that puts me off both the tool and their websites. Can someone tell me if dreamweaver has an option to produce proper conformant xhtml1.0 (for instance) ? If not, what would you recommend instead ?Vi (well, actually vim) :-) Sorry, there's no substitute for learning HTML to write a website. WYSIWYG just doesn't work. You don't see what you get, you don't get a valid page, so no-one else gets to see what you wanted either.
I agree. Its not like its difficult or requires any programming skills to write html documents, its only mark up. My girlfriend was a technophobe when I met her back in 2000, but now she does the html and css for her own website. She isn't w3c compliant, although she is most of the way there. At least most of the way to 4.01 transitional, which is a good start. :) As for editors, I quite like KATE, it is a glorified text editor (which is all you need), and has nice colour coding and can do bulk tab and un-tab on selections. Anton http://www.antonchanning.com -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe. FAQ: www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html