Gary Kline wrote:
On Thu May 29 2008 00:39:06 Christian Zachariasen wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Gary Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
       Several weeks ago a friend asked why my www.thought.org page
       was so hard to read.  She said that part of my text was black
       on the deep-blue bg on my RHS.  I stopped and checked with
       firefox; things looked fine.  I've done all markup by hand since
       '94, very carefully, with only browsers in the ports tree--
       mozilla, firefox, a couple others.

       About a week ago I viewed my homepage with KDE Konq and almost
       flipped out.  One "free" commercial historical calender event
       feature was glued to the bottom of my blue bar (<TABLE></TABLE>)
       on the RHS of the page.   And yep, the new text and other things
       were centered in the middle of the long blue rectangle.

       Since I have a few weeks now to work on things beside research,
       it's time to update my main web page.   My friend was using IE;
       it may be that Konqueror uses a similar parser to position
       things on a .php or .html page.

       Other than beginning from Zero and trying to determine exactly
       what causes firefox and konq to diverge, do any of you have any
       other ideas?  I've never learned an HTML editors because of the
       learning curve.  But:: if/when I come up with a better design for
       my home page, I'm willing to try again:: any best (simple) HTML
       editors in ports?

       I'd be much obliged for any help here.

I say keep using the technique you're using now. That's what I'd do.
Instead of finding a HTML Editor
just find a simple text editor and write all your HTML in a clean manner.

I don't know where Ted got his statistics from, but most people I know use
simple text editors for writing their HTML, CSS
and JavaScript. Personally I stick to vi or diakonos on BSD and Notepad2 on
Windows.

/*
* strange:: the way that mutt queues [ and orders ] its replies and theads is * different from kmail. I only use a GUI when there is a URL embedded, but
 * it must be down-queue.   ....
 */

I would *rather* use vi and HTML-by-hand. And produce very simple, readable, uncluttered pages. I don't use many graphics, e.g., I use the strength of HTML, php, blah ** 3. I'm ready to learn this "CMS" that Ted mentioned if I knew what it was! And if its in ports. AFAIK, the only pages that look bizarre are my initial "www" (and one other based on it). I'll google around to find out what CMS is...

I still prefer html by hand. I use VIM though all our designers and developers use Dreamweaver, funny few if any can fix the HTML if the tool munges it. Many have no idea how HTML works.

As far as CMS tools go some create nice pages but at a cost. We have several clients who insist on CMS tools. The joke around our Office is [Joomla|Rails|other] is the only tool known to man to require 1GB server memory to load all the required libs in displaying "Hello World". Some of the CMS tools are very very heavy. Straight static HTML can be blisteringly fast in comparison unless you have low traffic or a fairly hefty server. Static HTML also doesn't show up in my CERT emails every month with security issues.

My 2 cents worth...

DAve

--
In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years
of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with
rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel
that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to