W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2007

Re: HTML 5 Tutorials and authoring Re: Dissatisfaction with HTML WG

From: Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:02:05 -0800
Message-ID: <7e91ba7e0712262102k721872a4pfd33924666714ad7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>
Cc: "Ben Boyle" <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org Public List" <public-html@w3.org>
>
> Le 27 déc. 2007 à 12:25, Ben Boyle a écrit :
> > I think I'll just read mails for now. In 2008, I'd like to try
> > tutorials. I don't know if that will be more useful but it feels like
> > it could be productive. We've got Lachie's ALA article, are there any
> > others out there? Are we keeping a list?



On Dec 26, 2007 7:52 PM, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote:

>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tasks83/results#xtasks
> "tutorial development, quick reference, course materials, ...   49"
> 49 volunteers to work with you. Plenty of space for organizing here.
> It seems the things which have been successful in the group so far:
> start and ask help (more than ask how to work).
>
> A review of Authoring tools on different platform could also help.
> http://www.w3.org/2007/07/html-authoring-tools/

[snip]

OK.  Well I've used (in order) Homesite, TopStyle, and now Aptana.  TopStyle
I would highly recommend for more code-oriented non-wysiwyg developers on
Windows.  So looked at the above W3C page, then went to look at what was
already written for TopStyle (no point in repeating what was said before).
Came across:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TopStyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTML_editors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_HTML_editors

Hmm ... I do not see much point in duplicating what has already been said,
and the general description better serves the greater good on Wikipedia,
rather than on a more obscure W3C WG-related page.

Backing up a step - I am not sure what purpose the Authoring (x)HTML
documents <http://www.w3.org/2007/07/html-authoring-tools/> page is meant to
serve.  Any general information is better dropped into the Wikipedia page.
Perhaps the W3C page would be better focused to reference Wikipedia page for
general information.  Any comments specific to the WG can go on the W3C
page.

Then again - what question(s) are that page meant to answer?
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2007 05:02:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:51 UTC