HTML-Kit to Adobe GoLive: should I switch?

[Teffy]

Should I switch from using HTML-Kit to using Adobe GoLive? I am just
a volunteer who is webmaster for a small non-profit group. I am the
only person working on the site. The only reason I am tempted to
switch from HTML-Kit to GoLive is that I can get an academic version
for cheap ($70 USD).

I have been doing simple coding by hand with HTML-Kit because it is
free, to avoid having to go back later to debug bloated tag soup some
editors spit out, and to keep file size small. Is this an outdated
view of things? If I got GoLive 7.0, could I merrily make more
interesting pages without having to code at all?

Thanks!
Teffy

[DU]

Teffy wrote:

Should I switch from using HTML-Kit to using Adobe GoLive?
No.

I am just a volunteer who is webmaster for a small non-profit group. I am the
only person working on the site. The only reason I am tempted to
switch from HTML-Kit to GoLive is that I can get an academic version
for cheap ($70 USD).

I have been doing simple coding by hand with HTML-Kit because it is
free, to avoid having to go back later to debug bloated tag soup some
editors spit out, and to keep file size small. Is this an outdated
view of things?
No. Hand-coding is the best way to code IMO.

If I got GoLive 7.0, could I merrily make more interesting pages without having to code at all?

Thanks!
Teffy

I doubt it very much. A software will never be able to actually
compensate real thinking, real planning, real designing. A software will
never be able to actually make level-headed decision, be able to update
itself, read articles, tutorials, read newsgroups, etc..

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunc...e7Section.html

[brucie]

In post <49**************************@posting.google.com >
Teffy said...

Should I switch from using HTML-Kit to using Adobe GoLive?
no
I have been doing simple coding by hand with HTML-Kit because it is
free, to avoid having to go back later to debug bloated tag soup some
editors spit out, and to keep file size small.
then wanting to change to golive is a bit odd considering golive spits
out bloated (error filled) tag soup.
If I got GoLive 7.0, could I merrily make more interesting pages without
having to code at all?

a program cant author html properly. a mind is needed to correctly
markup documents.
--
brucie.
12/October/2003 12:59:54 pm

[charlie]

On 11 Oct 2003 19:37:24 -0700, WG**********@spammotel.com (Teffy)
wrote:

I have not used GoLive, but I have found that Dreamweaver is very
nice. It basically takes hand coding out of html, and the code that
it generates is generally pretty clean. Also I think that the
academic version is $99 . You can download a 30 trial from
macromedia's site to see if you like it.

Charlie

Should I switch from using HTML-Kit to using Adobe GoLive? I am just
a volunteer who is webmaster for a small non-profit group. I am the
only person working on the site. The only reason I am tempted to
switch from HTML-Kit to GoLive is that I can get an academic version
for cheap ($70 USD).

I have been doing simple coding by hand with HTML-Kit because it is
free, to avoid having to go back later to debug bloated tag soup some
editors spit out, and to keep file size small. Is this an outdated
view of things? If I got GoLive 7.0, could I merrily make more
interesting pages without having to code at all?

Thanks!
Teffy

[Thor Kottelin]

DU wrote:

Hand-coding is the best way to code IMO.

I agree. However, although HTML-Kit once used to be a nice editor, it has
become so bloated and confusing that I nowadays use it only as an interface
to Tidy. I find normal text editors, such as Notepad and WordPad, much more
useful for writing HTML.

Follow-ups narrowed.

Thor

--
http://thorweb.anta.net/

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

Thor Kottelin wrote:

DU wrote:

Hand-coding is the best way to code IMO.

I agree. However, although HTML-Kit once used to be a nice editor, it has
become so bloated and confusing that I nowadays use it only as an interface
to Tidy. I find normal text editors, such as Notepad and WordPad, much more
useful for writing HTML.

You do? I find Notepad and Wordpad tedious to use, and I wouldn't
recommend them to anyone. They lack the most basic essentials in my
opinion and I cannot imagine using them unless I had no other available
alternative. Thankfully, there are other alternatives, such as any of
the many cheap or even free editors out there, which are far better
suited for writing HTML. I'd go with something like 1rst Page or
Weaverslave, so you'd have at least a decent line counter and syntax
highlighting.
--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

Teffy wrote:

Should I switch from using HTML-Kit to using Adobe GoLive? I am just
a volunteer who is webmaster for a small non-profit group. I am the
only person working on the site. The only reason I am tempted to
switch from HTML-Kit to GoLive is that I can get an academic version
for cheap ($70 USD).

I have been doing simple coding by hand with HTML-Kit because it is
free, to avoid having to go back later to debug bloated tag soup some
editors spit out, and to keep file size small. Is this an outdated
view of things? If I got GoLive 7.0, could I merrily make more
interesting pages without having to code at all?

Judged from the coding GoLive 6.0 does, the answer is no, you could not
make more interesting pages without having to code in GoLive. I find
GoLive is far too WYSIWYG oriented to be of much use as an HTML editor.
It does have some other nice features, though, that you might find
comfortable to use, especially if you have bigger sites to manage. Its
site management features are helpful, and it has a comfortable diagram
editor for planning site layout and site structure. But for the actual
coding I'd use a tool better suited for the task. Though as I said, this
is based on my experience with GoLive 6.0; I haven't tried 7.0 and
didn't even know it's out already.

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:

... I find Notepad and Wordpad tedious to use, and I wouldn't
recommend them to anyone. They lack the most basic essentials in my
opinion and I cannot imagine using them unless I had no other available
alternative.
I agree they lack some editing features which greatly improve the
productivity, but they are pretty useful in many cases (just because
of their simplicity and availability).
Thankfully, there are other alternatives, such as any of
the many cheap or even free editors out there, which are far better
suited for writing HTML. I'd go with something like 1rst Page or
Weaverslave, so you'd have at least a decent line counter and syntax
highlighting.

"line counter" - do you mean "line numbers"? Is this feature so
important? Notepad has line/column number indicator (not "line
numbers"), "Go To" line # command and it has Unicode support (at
least on NT/2000/XP).

--
Stanimir

[Whitecrest]

In article <49**************************@posting.google.com >,
WG**********@spammotel.com says...

Should I switch from using HTML-Kit to using Adobe GoLive?...

Probably not. GoLive, Front page, or any other WYSIWYG editor, is just
a tool. Other than the fact that the price is $70 what advantage do you
see with Golive?

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[Jonathan Snook]

"Stanimir Stamenkov" <s7****@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:bm************@ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de...

Thankfully, there are other alternatives, such as any of
the many cheap or even free editors out there, which are far better
suited for writing HTML. I'd go with something like 1rst Page or
Weaverslave, so you'd have at least a decent line counter and syntax
highlighting.

"line counter" - do you mean "line numbers"? Is this feature so
important? Notepad has line/column number indicator (not "line
numbers"), "Go To" line # command and it has Unicode support (at
least on NT/2000/XP).

You're not a real hand coder unless you create your pages using "copy con"
at the dos prompt. :) Undo is for suckers.

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

Jonathan Snook wrote:

You're not a real hand coder unless you create your pages using "copy con"
at the dos prompt. :) Undo is for suckers.

I use it on occasions for small batch files... but as you mention -
it is not for editing, it is just for plain input. :-)

--
Stanimir

[Teffy]

Whitecrest <wh********@zipzap.com> wrote in message news:<MP************************@news.charter.net> ...

In article <49**************************@posting.google.com >,
WG**********@spammotel.com says...

Should I switch from using HTML-Kit to using Adobe GoLive?...

Probably not. GoLive, Front page, or any other WYSIWYG editor, is just
a tool. Other than the fact that the price is $70 what advantage do you
see with Golive?

Thanks for the advice, everyone!

I was hoping for something that would make placement of text and
images easier. It takes me a long time to deal with nested tables
because I find them confusing. Plus, I think the trend is to move
away from tables for placement and use style sheets instead. But I
know very little about CSS, so I don't know how involved that is.

Teffy

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed WG**********@spammotel.com (Teffy)
writing in news:49**************************@posting.google.c om:

Whitecrest <wh********@zipzap.com> wrote in message
news:<MP************************@news.charter.net> ...

In article <49**************************@posting.google.com >,
WG**********@spammotel.com says...

> Should I switch from using HTML-Kit to using Adobe GoLive?...

Probably not. GoLive, Front page, or any other WYSIWYG editor, is
just a tool. Other than the fact that the price is $70 what advantage
do you see with Golive?

Thanks for the advice, everyone!

I was hoping for something that would make placement of text and
images easier. It takes me a long time to deal with nested tables
because I find them confusing. Plus, I think the trend is to move
away from tables for placement and use style sheets instead. But I
know very little about CSS, so I don't know how involved that is.

Teffy

CSS is *much* easier to deal with than nested tables. For example:
<div id="menu">
<ul>
<li>menu</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="content">
The quick brown fox...
</div>

In an external style sheet, it is just a matter of defining the
presentation of the two divs, position, size, colors, etc. In subsequent
documents, that all share the same ids, making a change in the external
stylesheet changes all the documents, instead of having to go into each one
individually.

Or, let's say that you want all your H1 elements to be green, in your
external stylesheet:
h1 {color: green; background-color: transparent}
In the document:
<h1>Title of the Page</h1> would be green. If you decided to change it to
blue later, just go into the external style sheet and change it to blue.
Much, much simpler.

--
Adrienne Boswell
Please respond to the group so others can share
http://www.arbpen.com

[Safalra]

"Jonathan Snook" <go***************@snook.ca> wrote in message news:<xo*********************@news01.bloor.is.net. cable.rogers.com>...

"Stanimir Stamenkov" <s7****@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:bm************@ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de...

Notepad has line/column number indicator (not "line
numbers"), "Go To" line # command and it has Unicode support (at
least on NT/2000/XP).

You're not a real hand coder unless you create your pages using "copy con"
at the dos prompt. :) Undo is for suckers.

Keyboards are for suckers - use switches and toggle it in. In EBCDIC.

--- Stephen Morley ---
http://www.safalra.com

[Teffy]

Thanks for the tip! I watched a video about Dreamweaver MX 2004 on
macromedia's site, and I am interested in the CSS support and template
support. And I love 'try before you buy.'

Teffy

charlie <ch*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<5k********************************@4ax.com>. ..

On 11 Oct 2003 19:37:24 -0700, WG**********@spammotel.com (Teffy)
wrote:

I have not used GoLive, but I have found that Dreamweaver is very
nice. It basically takes hand coding out of html, and the code that
it generates is generally pretty clean. Also I think that the
academic version is $99 . You can download a 30 trial from
macromedia's site to see if you like it.

Charlie

Should I switch from using HTML-Kit to using Adobe GoLive? I am just
a volunteer who is webmaster for a small non-profit group. I am the
only person working on the site. The only reason I am tempted to
switch from HTML-Kit to GoLive is that I can get an academic version
for cheap ($70 USD).

I have been doing simple coding by hand with HTML-Kit because it is
free, to avoid having to go back later to debug bloated tag soup some
editors spit out, and to keep file size small. Is this an outdated
view of things? If I got GoLive 7.0, could I merrily make more
interesting pages without having to code at all?

Thanks!
Teffy

[Markus Ernst]

"Teffy" <WG**********@spammotel.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:49**************************@posting.google.c om...

Thanks for the tip! I watched a video about Dreamweaver MX 2004 on
macromedia's site, and I am interested in the CSS support and template
support. And I love 'try before you buy.'

The difference between Dreamweaver and Golive is mainly that Golive writes
it's own Javascript code which looks very big and messy. Dreamweaver writes
Javascript you can learn of and change by hand. There is a very nice code
view and also a split code/layout view in Dreamweaver, I also use it to code
by hand.

--
Markus

[Jean Pierre Daviau]

http://www.editplus.com/