CJM wrote:
Ironically, FP will have a few features that Netpadd (and others)
don't...
Of course it will. The question is whether or not they're helpful to
anybody who knows HTML, and who also knows more than HTML, server-side
scripting, databases etc. are used for doing bigger websites. And
someone who also knows ASP or FP-Extensions are not cross-server.
but this thread wasn't about comparing editors - the fact
is that many editors can do naughty things, not just FP.
And I'm not sure where start time comes in... another editor
comparison perhaps?
They all suffer from one basic misconception though if they're
graphical, i.e. pseudo-WYSIWYG... they make you think the Web can work
that way (or that a programming language can, which basically is needed
for many bigger sites, as opposed to just plain HTML).
Look, I'm not going to advocate people rushing out to buy
Office/FP... but it's just too easy a target. Microsoft is crap, FP
is crap etc... Yes, we know... but 95% of everything is crap...
Actually, I was serious when I said I give FP a try whenever a new
version comes out. I have this hope they put a lot of effort into it
and a lot of money so there must come out some value. And I do see
serious possibilities for an editor to do something useful. E.g.
something like a graphical CSS designer, which respects your
class-names and doesn't add inline-styles. Unfortunately, FP does just
that. I was thinking about doing it myself as part of a CMS I wrote.
For me it would need to be browser-based. I want to view my page, grab
a div-block, reposition it one pixel to the left, save, and only the
CSS media screen gets changed. Something like that I would definitely
give a try. Not that I would really use it.
--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com 
