In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Glazman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Thomas wrote:
> > That was my point -- it's ok to copy and paste elements across the
> > boundaries of other elements when doing mail composition (where you're
> > not concerned with counting CLASSes or specifying IDs), but when
> > editing
> > Web pages or XML, dissecting elements like that is almost certainly not
> > what the author intended.
>
> Definitely false if the author only cares about the rendering and not
> about the structure/markup.
Why do you suppose the author doesn't care about structure/markup? If
Mozilla's *Web page* editor isn't pro-intent-of-standards and
pro-structure, what good will it offer over the n+1 editors out there
that are already built around the assumption that the user wants to
produce presentational document using the selection-styling editing
paradigm?
(If someone can recommend a real structural HTML editor for Mac that I
could recommend to my mother, I am listening. I've been hoping Mozilla
Editor could be that editor, but, sadly, Editor seems to be headed to
another direction.)
> Again, think of a Wysiwyg environment. If you *SEE*
> something, copy and paste it somewhere else, you should *SEE* the same
> thing.
Previously, it has been argued that Editor should work like a word
processor.
Try this in MS Word:
1) Type a block of text.
2) Set its style to Heading 1.
3) Create a new document with different font settings for Heading 1.
4) Copy the block of text (including the paragraph mark!) from the first
document.
5) Paste into the second document.
6) Observe how the font settings of the second document get applied.
What I meant with my remark about Word in my previous message was that
guessing block styles from styling applied to arbitrary selections (the
Automatically Update Styles feature in Word) leads to trouble. Using the
style editor explicitly is easier and the results are predictable.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/
