Re: browser vs. editor

Me too.
I think that, as Arlo points, being "extreme WYSIWYG" brings a several
undesired restrictions that set Amaya apart from the other browsers. Too
apart, IMO.

As of today not being able to run Javascript in a browser sets too hard a
limit on its acceptance.
It's not that Amaya was to compete with IE or FF. It's only that its range
of application is getting more restricted day after day.
Doing the 2-mode thingie might be a solution.

I guess that the problem is related with displaying or not the
script-generated HTML and CSS, and the interaction of the user with that
generated markup.
Yes, in some cases the "browse" view can be very different to the "edit"
view. It's up to the writer to develop scripts that do so or not.
But restricting a browser to the features of the 199X web to have matching
edit and browse views seems a severe limitation.
The Amaya charter states its standards-compliance goal and this is OK. But
this also forces the users out of Amaya, thus hindering any possible
influence.

Since ever Netscape was a browser and an editor, and I used this feature for
writing documentation until I switched to Amaya.
The Netscape editor was horrible because it was (still is) not like Amaya,
it displayed lots of edition-related artifacts. Amaya is much better than
the Netscape editor because it's so WYSIWYG and this is a Good Thing.

In my FF I have an extension named "IE Tab" that renders a page in a tab
using the IE engine, this approach might be a means for Amaya to get a (yes,
I know, non-standards compliant!) rendering engine. Gecko can also be used
from inside another application, as Eclipse does.
-- 
Juan Lanus