On 11/10/13 5:30 PM +0900, Ed Mullen wrote:
Trane Francks wrote:
On 11/10/13 11:13 AM +0900, Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
WaltS wrote:
I did change the size by changing the two pixel parameters with
"Constrain" checked. Maintains the image's aspect ratio.
Sounds like the user used an image editor. After that I'm not sure
what they did.
In my experience resizing images with Composer, which admittedly is
limited to outgoing emails, width or height or both can be modified
as I
please, but if I specify a percentage for one and delete the other,
Composer restores the original value in pixels for the "deleted"
parameter. Thus, I can't specify
<img src="1indy.jpg" height="25%">
because Composer substitutes
<img src="1indy.jpg" height="25%" width="660px">
I've tried checking the "Constrain" box, but it won't toggle (clicks
have no effect), so I can't say what difference it would make.
One more reason to learn how to write HTML instead of relying on tools
which screw with the code imperfectly.
There is NO WYSIWYG HTML editor that creates code that will validate
all
of the time. None.
If you're trying to create Web pages, learn HTML and CSS.
And stop complaining that imperfect WYSIWYG tools like Composer don't
work properly: They never will.
Nice rant. Plenty of people wrote plenty of websites with Composer that
validated just fine. Me included.
Interesting assertion. Can you give a link of a site you created with
Mozilla's Composer that passes the W3C's Validator?
Now? Heck, no. I haven't coded a site with Composer since 2005. I've got
an OLD band site online that has some pages that don't validate and most
that do:
<http://www.lifeafterfailing.com/>
The landing page doesn't pass and the schedule page doesn't pass. All
the rest do. Once upon a time, all of it validated. Sloppy refactoring
later and now the site doesn't pass.
But everyone (I think) agrees that Composer hasn't been worked on in
years and will not ever be. Oh, sure, there are spin-offs that purport
to address this but, frankly, none of them does, or will ever, in my
estimation, produce the holy grail: A tuly valid WYSIWYG W3C-valid
generator of Web pages.
I completely agree that Composer will never get better than it is now.
That said, I still have web clients that find Web 1.0 sites perfectly
represent what they want. As bizarre as that may sound.
Been doing this a long time and I've never seen it, not Dreamweaver
(lovely name, totally false assumption) nor anything else.
I'm not saying that these things will generate validated code every time
out of the box. That's WHY the validator is important. The WYSIWYG
editor gets close and then whatever sloppiness exists in our code gets
tidied up by hand.
Or, just use one of these tools, toss your Web page up on the 'net and
don't come back here hollering about people complaining that your site
fails in some way. It's because you just don't get it.
Nice 'tude, bro. I bet you're loads of fun at parties.
Actually, I am according to most reports. And I'm not your "bro."
Awwww. I always wanted a bro. On with the search I go. ;-)
Composer (and all of its ancestors) was an interesting idea that never
worked and, I doubt, ever will.
Composer and its ilk worked well enough for basic Web 1.0 development
Jesus! "Web 1.0"??? What decade are you locked into?
The last non-CMS site I put into play was in mid-2005. Since then,
validation has been somebody else's problem.
and began stumbling once anything beyond basic stuff started happening.
It has its share of bugs, yes, but loads of money has been spent on the
'interesting idea' of WYSIWYG HTML editors. For decades. That Composer
has problems is not proof that WYSIWYG editors are all doomed to fail.
That's just not a logical conclusion.
Making money is an indicator of success? Good grief! People who don't
know any better will spend lots of money on idiotic products that don't
work ... until the get smart enoudh to realize the the products don't
work. What does that prove?
It proves that good enough passes muster for the vast majority of
people. Dreamweaver and its ilk satisfied an important need for quite a
while. Now that CMS are ubiquitous, I suspect that hand-coded HTML will
go the way of the dodo for most users. Those who get deep into
hand-coding templates for Rails apps and the like will probably know
better than to post non-compliant code. One hopes, at least.
Show me one example of a WYSIWYG HTML editor that consistently produces
validated code and the argument is over. Seriously. I'd be happy to
have you show me an example. I doubt you can. And I'm pretty sure, if
you do some testing, you can't.
Create whatever you like and run it through:
http://validator.w3.org/
Composer and its various spins offs, while valiant efforts, are not in
the running.
By this definition, I guess you're right. I guess I just took issue with
what appeared to be you totally bitch-slapping a person for not being an
HTML guru and for, OMG, expecting a product to deliver on its promises.
It seemed a little harsh.
