Re: html editors

>  > The only validation error that you are likely to see in
>>  Dreamweaver is missing ALT attributes. So it is not really
>>  that disturbing. 
>
>If only that were true; by default, DW doesn't even emit a DOCTYPE
>directive, ...

Whilst this is somewhat irritating; as Dreamweaver is a tool
for the world wide web, the lack of a DOCTYPE tag is hardly
a fatal drawback as browsers (at least in general) make no use
of such a tag. If you require Dreamweaver to include a DOCTYPE
tag in each a new document it creates, you can set up a template,
which would also allow you to include <LINK> and <META> tags,
set up colours and a stylesheet to your taste.

More importantly, most tools default to HTML 4.01 (or XHTML),
and so little is lost with not having a <!DOCTYPE>.

>throws away trailing slashes in relative URLs, ...

I am still on Dreamweaver 3 (it still works), and it doesn't
have this behaviour in my hands.

>and is capable of generating the most appalling code ...

Aside - Do you know of a superlative beyond most?

If you think that Dreamweaver's code is any way appalling, you
must have lived a particularly sheltered life.

>(e.g., <LI>s that are not within an <OL> or <UL> context.

Select a line; choose Text->List->Unordered list: Dreamweaver
generates a pair of <OL> and <LI> tags for you. Dreamweaver
will certainly handle a <LI> out of place (as do most browsers),
this is  probably to implement the positive features of round trip
HTML and not interfering where it is not wanted.

>HoTMetaL  PRO is, I think, still the only editor that generates 
>reasonable code even in the hands of the completely unskilled ...

I have never found an unskilled person happy with HotMetal, though
I have not tried the latest version. (BTW I believe that there
is a version of HotMetal on a magazine this month).

>  (although /it/ emits a proprietary DTD in the default DOCTYPE, and 
>places <IMG>s after the closing </HTML> if the user tries to insert 
>one in a non-permitted context).  It also suppresses all syntax 
>checking during pasting, so copy-and-paste is a pretty sure way of 
>getting it to generate invalid HTML.

You don't mean 'generate' do you? Incorporate perhaps. Doesn't it flag it
as invalid, and perhaps disallow saving with a .htm extension.

>  I just wish there were an editor which offered the functionality of 
>Dreamweaver and/or HoTMetaL, which regarded the choice of DOCTYPE as 
>fundamental, and which /never/ generated invalid code.  One day, 
>maybe...

emacs.

Ben

Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:03:11 UTC