Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:19:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" <ejs@bfd.com> To: Keith Walker <kew@timesink.spk.wa.us> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Web Authoring Tools Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961014105942.28957A-100000@harlie> In-Reply-To: <199610141427.HAA07232@phobos.walker.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Keith Walker wrote: > Yeah but.... > > What about using Netscape Gold? It isn't what i would want to use for > a large project, but at least it's WYSIWYG. Actually, I consider that a drawback. I haven't had a single WYSIWYG HTML editor that hasn't messed up something. NG dropped links (dropped some, but not all links on one page, *STILL* haven't figured out why that happened), another one dropped META tags, etc. Basically, they all have their own idea of what tags to use, tend to drop any tags they don't understand, and they don't warn me when they do drop info. If they would at least warn me, then I'd consider using them, but I've spent too much time trying to recover lost information to want to waste any more time. Oh, and this was done on Win95 for the most part. It might work better if you use *ONLY* the one product, so that you can't enter anything it doesn't understand. Not to mention the fact that WYSIWYG HTML is a contradiction in terms. I've got pages that look different under Netscape 2.0, 3.0, and Internet Explorer 2.0 and 3.0, on the same machine: then throw in different machines, and start loosing hair. NS 3.0 and IE 3.0 are close matches. Now if everyone would just upgrade, and if lynx could match them too :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.961014105942.28957A-100000>