Xusto D. H. Sals writes "The W3C's web browser-cum-editor Amaya has finally reached version 8.0. Changes are detailed here. Out of interest, how many people use this as a HTML editor, if so why, or why not?"
Simple answer ...
by
belbo
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Out of interest, how many people use this as a HTML editor, if so why, or why not?
Quoth the changelog:
Access keys for activating menu entries (Alt + a letter) are now available on Windows versions.[...]
Amaya now allows to create/change a link without using the mouse. [...]
Support of attribute align="left" and align="right"
Amaya is _so_ far behind the curve, it isn't even funny anymore.
Give me htp and a good text editor and I got you a complete website sooner than you figure out how to handle Amaya's incredibly cumbersome interface.
With the advent of structured markup from the XML family, graphical HTML editors seem to become superfluous - you put a logical structure into the text and have it presentated by another file, the style sheet. There's no reason why that should require any form of WYSIWYG editing, especially since all the WYSIWYG editors I know suck at handling style sheets, let alone creating them properly. They are handy when prototyping, but after that, a script can do the same job in one tenth of a time.
--
-- "Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."
Re:Simple answer ...
by
JimDabell
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Amaya is _so_ far behind the curve, it isn't even funny anymore.
It may have only just implemented things like floats, but it's had XHTML, SVG, annotations and MathML for years.
It's a testbed project - it's not behind the curve, it just has different priorities.
OTOH, They're pretty late in CSS implementation. The "float" property is relatively old, but has just been added in this release. Seems background-images didn't work either (CSS1).
If you must revert to spacer GIF tricks to build a webpage out of Amaya, there's no point in using a "we lack 1998's standards" browser. You prevent the web from evolving.
Wouldn't the Amaya developers use their time more wisely in collaborating with Mozilla/KHTML? It's nice to show off SVG and MathML, but if there's no audience, that precious development is lost.
Re:A good testbed
by
4of12
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's nice to show off SVG and MathML,
A lot of people in the scientific community would welcome a means for easily publishing their work in a high quality format on the web. HTML is a nice standard when content and presentation can or should be separated. PDF permits high quality output, but the format is opaque to manual use unlike HTML.
That means scalable vector graphics and high quality mathematics typesetting, things which up until now have been available only through graphical drawing applications supporting PostScript or PDF, or document preparation systems like TeX.
If Amaya permitted one to author a graphical SVG sketch and to annotate specific locations with mathematical equations in MathML that would be rendered with TeX quality, that would be a real plus.
-- "Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:Why would anyone use this?
by
WWWWolf
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I write in pure HTML - why would anyone do different?
People seem to think it's easier to do HTML with a graphical toy, even when it, of course, isn't in retrospect - you get a pretty site with, shall we say, challenging HTML code that people will need to modify by hand...
Amaya tends to generate pretty cool and even standards-compliant code, though it's still possible to do strange things with it.
Suppose you're (like me) teaching non-techs how to do web pages with Amaya. You can start telling web newbies about page structure, different meanings of different tags, but when they find out the hard font changing options, all hell breaks loose and they never learn how to do proper pages. =( And on top of all this, they insist on using graphical tools because raw HTML is "hard".
If people call HTML hard, well, I'm these days tempted to tell them back, "Ah, but in that case, just write the content and let someone else to do the HTML page. HTML requires some patience and willing to understand. If you don't have either, it obviously isn't your forte." The problem is, some people might be angered by that reply...
Anyway, personally, yeah, I think Amaya is nice, but I still like xemacs, optionally with wml+tidy =)
Slashdot Mirror
Quoth the changelog:
Access keys for activating menu entries (Alt + a letter) are now available on Windows versions.[...]
Amaya now allows to create/change a link without using the mouse. [...]
Support of attribute align="left" and align="right"
Amaya is _so_ far behind the curve, it isn't even funny anymore.
Give me htp and a good text editor and I got you a complete website sooner than you figure out how to handle Amaya's incredibly cumbersome interface.
With the advent of structured markup from the XML family, graphical HTML editors seem to become superfluous - you put a logical structure into the text and have it presentated by another file, the style sheet. There's no reason why that should require any form of WYSIWYG editing, especially since all the WYSIWYG editors I know suck at handling style sheets, let alone creating them properly. They are handy when prototyping, but after that, a script can do the same job in one tenth of a time.
--
"Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."
OTOH, They're pretty late in CSS implementation. The "float" property is relatively old, but has just been added in this release. Seems background-images didn't work either (CSS1).
If you must revert to spacer GIF tricks to build a webpage out of Amaya, there's no point in using a "we lack 1998's standards" browser. You prevent the web from evolving.
Wouldn't the Amaya developers use their time more wisely in collaborating with Mozilla/KHTML? It's nice to show off SVG and MathML, but if there's no audience, that precious development is lost.
People seem to think it's easier to do HTML with a graphical toy, even when it, of course, isn't in retrospect - you get a pretty site with, shall we say, challenging HTML code that people will need to modify by hand...
Amaya tends to generate pretty cool and even standards-compliant code, though it's still possible to do strange things with it.
Suppose you're (like me) teaching non-techs how to do web pages with Amaya. You can start telling web newbies about page structure, different meanings of different tags, but when they find out the hard font changing options, all hell breaks loose and they never learn how to do proper pages. =( And on top of all this, they insist on using graphical tools because raw HTML is "hard".
If people call HTML hard, well, I'm these days tempted to tell them back, "Ah, but in that case, just write the content and let someone else to do the HTML page. HTML requires some patience and willing to understand. If you don't have either, it obviously isn't your forte." The problem is, some people might be angered by that reply...
Anyway, personally, yeah, I think Amaya is nice, but I still like xemacs, optionally with wml+tidy =)