btw: if you want to experiment with XML, there is a really great free beta
tool by Architag.com called XRay
http://www.architag.com/xray/
I suggest you download it while it's still free. Really neat.
--brendan avery / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 09:01 AM 1/11/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>As far as my opinions on the XML methodologies, your answer that some things
>have to be learned is kind of a slippery-slope argument ... if you argue
>that some things just have to be done by hand in regards to XML, what
>happens if someone argues the same defense for tables or links? At what
>point to you draw the line? As XML becomes more and more widespread (not
>that it's not already) it will be as indespensible a tool as links and
>tables and layers. And BTW ... I already use XML in my applications, not
>trying to avoid learning it, just thought it would be nice to have a more
>visual approach to using some of the more common doc types. Same for XSL ...
>what's so "off the wall" about XSL in a visual environment? Isn't that the
>goal of UD/DW? To make complex code simpler? Very few individuals are going
>to not learn JavaScript because DW does some major functions for you, same
>with XSL/XML ... it's really not that far-fetched.
>
>"Again, easy tiger why not ustilise the MSXML DOM to extend XML support the
>tools are present.?" Well why not write all the CSS by hand and all the
>JavaScript by hand and all the database connectivity by hand and use MSWORD
>to write your web apps? Why do you use UD at all? Of course there are other
>ways to do it, that's not the point.
>
>"Wow, why not add a wizard which will do all the work for you and you still
>get paid :-)" This is what people used to say about DW and other WYSIWYG
>editors - very ignorant and short-sighted people said things like this. :-)
>
>I understand that DW and UD are seperate apps ... that's why I was baffled
>by the 1.0 to 4.0 jump ... you say in one line that they're seperate
>applications not to be confused with one another and in another line you say
>they joined the 2 to avoid confusion. If they're seperate apps, then UD is
>version 2.0 ... not to be confused with Dreamweaver 4.0 It's just like
>Adobe's fusion of ImageReady into Photoshop ... it's PhotoShop 5.5 with
>ImageReady 2.0 packaged with it. Not really a major issue, just wondered why
>that happened.
>
>"I have not seen much of a difference in development time though, as I am
>equally at home with both prods." Good for you, but this is MY opinion now
>isn't it? I have obviously experienced difference in development time and
>wished to add my views to the list. Not all of us work the same my friend
>.... some of us are more visual persons and some of us are not. I believe
>UD/DW is designed for the visual thinker and worker - thus the S in WYSIWYG.
>
>"Duh, so has M$ Word, but thats not the point is it? The code editor is
>more of a tweaker of code (if you dont write by hand already) It is designed
>to be simple so that you try and keep the hardcore coders in the DW/UD
>environment." This just makes no sense at all. Why would the hardcore coders
>be in the UD/DW environment in the first place? This is like saying "We're
>going to keep the beer outside the bar to keep the hardcore drinkers inside
>the bar." I'd personally like to see a more robust editor inside UD ... that
>would keep me inside the UD environment. I currently hand-code all my CF as
>it's way better than working in the UD environment... I switch to UD/DW only
>to make visual edits to the layout. If it had a nice editor then I'd work in
>the editor until I needed the visual and then close the editor and move to
>the visual without having a copy open in DW and a copy open in CFStudio and
>having 2 apps running on my "Not the fastest horse" notebook. I think the
>idea here is to make a product that competes with Studio on some level ...
>that's why we've been asked to give our views.
>
>Joshua Miller
>Web Development
>Eagle Technologies Group, Inc.
>Business Solutions for the Next Generation
>www.eagletgi.com <http://www.eagletgi.com>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Neil Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:25 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: Dreamweaver UltraDev 4.0 and Cold Fusion
>
>
>Joshua, hopefully this will fill you in...1st of, dont confuse DW and UD as
>the same product they are not. They may have the same functionality to a
>certain degree butw where DW stops, UD takes over in the Database sections.
>
> >>1. Notepad has all the features of the Dreamweaver/UD code editor
>(sans-color-coding)
>
> Duh, so has M$ Word, but thats not the point is it? The code
> editor is
>more of a tweaker of code (if you dont write by hand already) It is designed
>to be simple so that you try and keep the hardcore coders in the DW/UD
>environment.
>
> >>2. No tag insight
>
> Not true. It has got a tag insight, well not the lazy 'fill the
> rest of my
>string in as I can't be arsed' functionality but it has the Xcellent
>O'Reilly reference built into it, which IMHO is far better that a tag
>insight as it gives you much more info. A good learning tool if nothing
>else - you would be surprised how many poeple still dont know browser
>indifferences.
>
> >>3. No document tree window for editing multiple docs from the same editor
> >>interface.
>
> Well if you have been using DW from ver.1 you would know that this was
>a point raised and was decided to keep - a good percentage of DW/UD is done
>in Javascript which allows for its excellent exstensibility and I would
>assume, but dont quote me, that it has something to do with that - i.e.
>seperate calls to the DOM to render pages. I have not seen much of a
>difference in development time though, as I am equally at home with both
>prods.
>
> >>4. Limited Shortcuts in the editor view
>
> What do you mean? the program is packed full of keyboard shortcuts!!
>You can move them, define your own - whatever!!! thats the beauty of it - or
>do you want pretty pictures to guid you through the app? :-)
>
> >>1. Built in XML parser that recognizes standard XML formats (doc book,
>RDF,
>etc.) and will output XML files into CF/ASP/JSP pages using CFFILE or
>comparable functions in the other languages.
>
> Wow, why not add a wizard which will do all the work for you and you
>still get paid :-) <LOL> some things have to be learnt my man.....
>
> >>2. Built in XSL parser - assign XML elements CSS properties in a visual
>environment.
>
> Again, easy tiger why not ustilise the MSXML DOM to extend XML
> support the
>tools are present.?
>
> >>3. Support for Fusebox and other CF-related methodologies (CFOBJECTS,
>etc.)
>
> Will never happen, not by Macromedia, unless they become 'standards'
>supported by Allaire - which we all know will never happen - they have
>Spectra now.
>
> >>By the way, what happened to UltraDev 2.0 and 3.0? Can you really just
>jump
> >>from 1.0 to 4.0 in one version? Sounds a little Netscape-ish to me :)
>
> Well, the decision was made to use the version 4 tag as they were
> basically
>bolting on UD2 into Dreamweaver 3. To avoid confusion of realeasing
>Dreamweaver 4 and Dreamweaver Ultradev 2. So they bumped up the number to
>4. It is not Crapscapish by any means, DW comes in 2 flavours, Dreamweaver
>& Dreamweaver Uldradev (DW in steroids)
>
>HTH
>
>Neil
>
><! -----------------------------------
>Neil Clark
>Senior Web Applications Engineer
>ColdFusion / Spectra / XML
>mcb digital [Allaire Premium Partner]
>Tel. +44 (0)20 8941 3232
>Tel. +44 (0)20 8408 8131 [Direct]
>http://www.mcbdigital.com
>----------------------------------->
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
