I've tried Mozilla, and I've don't find any options saying that the
code generated will be XHTML compliant. Mozylla generate <br>, <hr>,
<img>, ...
Based on suggestions I've received, I've tried nvu. And nvu has an
options allowing you to generate XHTML files that kid can manage.
Fine!!!!
BUT
I cannot use the ${variable} notation ????!!!!???
Each time nvu convert it to a "%7B" ;-(.
Thus one of the goal of Kid: give back a kid file to a designer, does
not work with nvu.
Thus Kid, and his requirement to use strict XHTML, is annoying.
Am I the only one having such problems ?
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On 10/22/05, william <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I understand, but what is annoying is that I'm used to use Mozilla to
> >> make html pages. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. But I've not check
> >> if options exists to force the XHTML format.
> >> Does the main HTML editor are alredy XHTML oriented ?
> >> What you propose is creating an extrat step. But, indeed, why not if we
> >> can automatize it.
> >
> > I know that nvu can do XHTML, but I'm not sure about Mozilla.
> >
>
> When we looked into this, we found the template language and the
> potential html editors were usually different issues. For us the
> debate was whether to continue using a text editor. However, the
> Zope templates had a priority to be able to have their html read by
> wysiwyg html editors like Dreamweaver. I read this applys to kid as
> well and tried a few things out:
> I had no problem opening and editing kid templates in Mozilla's
> Composer, or kde's Quanta. Where dynamic content should be, you see
> the text that will be replaced. After you finish your tags, filling
> in the dynamic content tags is just adding pyreplace,py:for etc.
> For open source editors, we narrowed it down to Screem,Bluefish,Quanta
> and Nvu. The difference between Nvu and the others mentioned here is
> the extent that it produces html code for you. They say the true
> wysiwyg should support draging and dropping objects with all html
> generation as magic. The other editors above generate html tags and
> such, but you are still looking at the code in an editor window and
> adjusting it yourself.
> I say this to point out I didn't try kid templates with Nvu, and it
> may not be comparable to the less wysiwyg ones I tried. However,
> from reading the docs on all of them, the ability to pick one's
> flavor of html(xhtml strict,transitional etc.) seems trivial. In
> fact, many of them seem easy to use for any xml editing with a
> dtd/schema.
> I only tried this with Composer after reading your email, but it read
> my kid templates fine.
>
> Will
