W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-amaya@w3.org > July to September 1998

Ideal HTML tools (was: It simply wont navigate)

From: Mario Amado Alves <amadoalves@mailexcite.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 07:20:25 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-amaya@w3.org
Message-ID: <BNDDIJAGLEAHAAAA@mailexcite.com>
Dear Romuald, of course I forgive all Amaya
bugs! (but who am I to forgive anything?),
and that I respect the Amaya effort
should be clear from the mere fact
that I am an Amaya user. But you are
right: sometimes when I say "Amaya team"
I should actually say "all of us programmers":
I for my part feel a bit gilty for not
having written a "decent" browser yet
and/or not being able to take the time
to support Amaya development more directly.

Now the real question, in fact two:

(1) editor vs. browser

(2) WYSIWYG vs. source

About (1) I gather we all more or less agree
that Amaya is a better editor than browser:
"it simply wont navigate", remember?
Now should Amaya focus on editing or browsing?
Of course it makes no sense to ask this,
if Amaya is by definition an EDITOR-BROWSER
(is it?) Notice that editing is much more
difficult that browsing (on the user side),
and programming any task is very complex on
its own, so integrating them is very very
difficult, so focusing on browsing for
graphics would be a way of reducing
complexity and improving reliability.
Also notice that it is perfectly possible
(and, I submit, better) to have
an editor-browser based on
SOURCE editing, or at least to have that
alternative i.e. a source window.
In fact it would seem that the current
structure view of Amaya would be this,
but have you tried to edit there yet?...

Clearly there are many supporters of both
sides of question (2). But there is confusion
about this also. Of course non-programmers
("artists, publicists...") should be able to
publish on the Web. But this does not mean
that their tools should be mithological HTML
graphic editors (Amaya, Composer, Frontpage, etc.)
In fact professional graphists use very different
tools altogether (CorelDraw, Photoshop, etc.)
The quirk is that pure HTML is LOGICAL markup,
and all formatting should be done via stylesheets:
so in an ideal world graphic tools should export these.
It seems it all comes down to:

(3) logical vs. physical

Once we accept this dicotomic model of a
document, it is very hard to like WYSIWYG.
Give us defenders of (3) a PAIR of editors
anytime.

PS: Forgive my previous complaint about
subjects being inconsistent with content.
Some technical problem delayed my reading of
Romuald's entire message until AFTER Ramzi's reply
to it, and so I failed to see the connection.
Anyway the connection has in fact thined out
and so I changed the subject line after all.
---
  /| /|  /|  /| m ar i o   R Franc Taborda 24 Rcd   Fac Ciencia Tecnologia
 / |/ | /_| /_| a m a d o   2825 CHARNECA CAPARICA   2825 MONTE DE CAPARICA 
/     |/  |/  | a l v e s   Portugal 351-1-2976751   Portugal 351-1-2948536
amadoalves@mailexcite.com   Telem/cel 0931-4024362   www-ssdi.di.fct.unl.pt/~maa




Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 1998 07:35:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:19 UTC