Renamed: Amaya as browser, not editor

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen replied to a previous message of mine:

> Dr Jacques Steyn wrote in message ...
>
> >BTW I agree with Mario Alves that Amaya should focus on being a browser
> >-- and a proper one. Forget about your authoring service.
>
> The notion that "everybody can be a publisher" is fundamental to the Web
> and has been there from day one: Tim Berners-Lee's first NextStep browser
> was also a GUI editor. I agree with you that Web apps should be fast but
> what we can show with the latest Amaya is that by using an optimized HTTP
> protocol stack, editors don't have to be slow nor do they have to break
> the "browsing" mode of users.
>
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, W3C

I agree with your approach, and really support you guys at the W3C in
this
regard.

But my point was really the following:
By trying to be both a browser and editor, Amaya has not succeeded yet
in
being either.

1. There is currently no browser that can understand  HTML 4.0 and CSS
2.0
markup and render it properly. From the W3C recommendations I often get
some
or other intention for an element or the like, but proprietory browsers
seem
to follow their own noses and release browsers that do not follow the
W3C's
intentions (as I read them). So I am looking to Amaya to fulfil this
role --
to show how intented markup should be rendered.

2. Over the past few years I have used many different kinds of markup
editors: SGI's WebMagic and CosmoCode, Miscrosoft's Frontpage, and now I
use
Macromedia's Dreamweaver. Apart from Dreamweaver all the other packages
force
markup in where I do not want it, so I  have grown accustomed to using
Jot on
Unix and Notepad on Windows to panelbeat the resulting markup. In fact,
panelbeating has become such a schlepp that once I knew the elements
properly
I preferred using a bland text editor to anything available on the
market --
until Dreamweaver came along. The beauty of this package is that you can
work
in its (kind-of) WYSIWIG window and markup editor simultaneously, and
most
importantly, it does not overrride one's markup.

So in my view standard text editors do the job of authoring just fine.
Apart
from Dreamweaver there is not really any authoringware I would like to
use
and nothing to recommend.  I'd rather stick to Jot or Notepad.

So I think it is a waste of time to try to develop Amaya as
authoringware.
Given the present state of Amaya you will have to go a very long way
before
you reach the efficiency of Dreamweaver. And for those who cannot afford
this
expensive package, a plain text editor does just fine. Admittedly, the
learning curve is steeper, but with copy and paste, and the large number
of
validators available, who needs another package that seems to be
battling to
get off the ground, and at this stage seems to need to go a very long
way
before it gets to the Dreamweaver level of efficiency?

I really think that there is a greater  need for a proper browser than
for
yet another editing tool.

It would be interesting to see if others share this view -- and perhaps
even
be more interesting to see what methods are used to cook up markup.

But don't take this too harsh. I think you guys are doing a great job!

Regards
Jacques

Received on Friday, 2 October 1998 13:05:19 UTC