On Thu May 29 2008 13:26:43 DAve wrote:
> 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...

well, for years my favored method is "kiss" == "keep it simple, sir."
i'm still chiuckling over that tool that requires a GIG to load.  


ps: thanks to Google: CMS == "content mgnt system"

> DAve

Gary Kline  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.thought.org  Public Service Unix
    http://jottings.thought.org   http://transfinite.thought.org
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to