On 4/25/13, Ed Mullen <[email protected]> wrote: > Gerry Hickman wrote: >> Part of the reason to choose SeaMonkey is you get "all in one", so we >> really need the components to work together. Choosing BlueGriffon would >> be a bit like choosing FireFox + ThunderBird instead of SM. >> >> Composer also has integration, you can be viewing a page and hit CTRL+E >> to edit the page. > If "one" of the "all in one" components doesn't work? Or feails miserably?
Consider the possibility that others might have a different definition of 'fail'. Composer has worked just fine for me until the release of SM 2.17.1 > Create a page using Composer > > Then submit it to the W3C Validator. > > http://validator.w3.org/ Consider the possibility that others might not give a damn if a page validates or not - just that it displays properly >>for them<< > Are you happy with the total SeaMonkey experience? up until 2.17.1 - yes > Composer sucks. For a decade or more. Yes, most WYSIWYG HTML editors > such too. No excuse. Strip it out of the suite. Kill it. It's dead. > > It's offensive to let it sit there and die a horribly slow death. > > You want to make a Web page? A billion other options. Like, maybe > learning someing about HTML and CSS> I do know something about HTML and CSS and I don't have any problem >>making<< a web page. What I have a problem with is editing out all the junk from some pages I want to save for personal use later on. Composer used to do a perfectly acceptable job -- with the side benefit of requiring one less program I had to maintain. Regards, Lee _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
