W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1999

ColdFusion Studio vs. HoTMetaL (Was What generates a .cfm page?)

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:12:28 -0400
Message-ID: <01BF1967.8E5C4200.bbailey@clark.net>
To: "'David Clark'" <dmclark@cast.org>
Cc: "'Web Accessibility Initiative'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Dear David et al.,

This is very helpful feedback, all the more so since I will (sometime) have 
to use something more sophisticated than my main tool (Windows Notepad).

In the meantime, I am curious how ColdFusion Studio compares to that other 
HTML editor that I have heard good (i.e., accessible) things about, 
HoTMetaL Pro.  Has anyone on this list compared both?  Which did you pick 
and why?  Is ColdFusion Studio's main advantage that it can naturally be 
extended to work with a server product (ColdFusion)?

Thank you.


On Friday, October 15, 1999 11:14 AM, David Clark [SMTP:dmclark@cast.org] 
wrote:
> Bruce, Charles, et al,
>
> Charles is correct, Cold Fusion can be made quite accessible very easily.
> The key is to code the "template" (basically just extend HTML) with
> accessibility in mind.
>
> CAST is using Cold Fusion more and more in our web efforts. In terms of a
> development environment, I find Studio (and its subset Homesite) to be
> highly customizable and accessible. You can even remap the keyboard
> equivalent for every function. For those who prefer a WYSIWYG 
environment,
> it is designed to work in concert with Dreamweaver to create good, clean,
> accessible code.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> David M. Clark
> CAST, Inc., 39 Cross St., Peabody, MA  01960
> Tel 978-531-8555 x236 - Fax 978-531-0192
> Email dmclark@cast.org
> http://www.cast.org/bobby/
Received on Monday, 18 October 1999 12:52:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:45 GMT