Hello Sean I was replying to Alan Lord, who was suggesting direct editing of xhtml markup. Do you not see the replies in threaded mode? I suggested using a 'light' markup with script based conversion to html and my point was that this reduces the silly errors you get from direct markup.
I do not generally use visual editors, although the page at http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/pages/probability-vocabulary-and-basics.html was produced using OpenOffice directly. cheers On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 20:18:09 +0000 Sean Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5 January 2013 20:16, Sean Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 5 January 2013 19:28, kpb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hello Sean and all > >> > >> While Markdown/textile are pretty light, my personal site isn't pretty :-) > >> > >> http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/ > >> > >> (The Llamas are a family joke). The method currently in use is described > >> here > >> > >> http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/pages/publish-a-web-site-with-bash-scripts.html > > > > > > I don't see any WYSIWYG editor in action here at all, yet you said that > > you used one to produce your "templates". > > > > Can you link to a template-based site that you've built using a WYSIWYG > > editor? > > > > I'm just interested to see what the code generated by the WYSIWYGs you're > advocating looks like, not pages generated by your shell script thing which > is not what the original thread was about. > > I stick with my argument that it is better to learn (X)HTML if one is > trying to write markup than some third-party "WYSIWYG" where what you see > will only be what you get on one browser (if you're lucky). > > Sean -- kpb <[email protected]> -- [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
