In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lars Behrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote: > > > Actually, the HTML markup produced by OOo Writer/Web is exceptionally > > sane (often cleaner than the markup produced by Nvu/Composer) if you > > don't edit styles in OOo but add a style sheet later. > > But what's the use of a wysiwyg editor then? ;-) I don't use it as a "WYSIWYG" editor (problematic concept considering the Web). I use it as an editor that allows me to write lightly structured (headings, paragraphs, lists) documents without having to type tags. > And how do I put the style markup in? Using your favorite text editor or a small script. > A short test showed that OOo writes the source in all uppercase letters That's OK. > and still makes use of <b></b> and <i></i> tags. If you ask for bold or italics, <b></b> and <i></i> are the most appropriate markup. If you want generic emphasis, ask for generic emphasis, which is supported as well. <span style='font-style: italic;'> instead of <i> is silly. http://mpt.net.nz/archive/2004/05/09/semantic > Don't want to start a flame war here, but still I would say, that someone > with few or no knowledge of web coding is better off with nvu. Their paragraphs won't be. Hopefully this area will be improved as the development of Nvu goes on. Also, I don't like tho way Nvu sprinkles style='...' all over if you are not careful. I use Nvu for retouching existing pages, because Nvu doesn't mess everything up in that case like OOo does. -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iki.fi/hsivonen/ Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html _______________________________________________ mozilla-editor mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-editor
