On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Rick Troth wrote: > I have to say this, though some won't like hearing it: > > + compose your HTML by hand > + start with static content (no scripts at first) > + construct your scripts (active content) by hand > > Machine-generated HTML is a horrible mess > and will likely lead to content maintenance pain later. > HTML is just too easy to do. It takes a day to learn, > and *no* special training. Sure, there will need to be practice. > I strongly recommend AGAINST most "authoring tools". > > While there are many "canned" packages and services which provide > their own suites of scripts, you will need to write some locally. > I am not saying anything bad about web based products. They're fine. > Just don't expect any one product to cover all of you web needs and > DON'T BE AFRAID to write your own active content in any of the > scripting languages Perl, PHP, Python, Tcl, or even REXX.
One thing, though. Most people here referred to authoring web pages, not web sites. emacs, vim and not-tab-pro may be great editors, but they are still meant for editing single HTML pages. Even if your "site" is only a couple of pages, adding some common content (a common toolbal/sidebar) and a common look, and changing it once in a while can be tedious with a simple text editor. This is where you need some "machine-generated html". It can be in the form of pre-processed html, server-side pre-processed html (e.g: shtml, php). In those cases you can still use any decent html editor to create the original "templates". Of the tools mentioned here, mozilla, word and such create html pages. FrontPage and DreamWeaver create "sites". I'm not sure about Quanta. -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
