On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 07:39:49PM -0500, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote: > > Sorry wrong wording on my part. When I said "it should look exactly as it > would appear on the net", I meant the editor to have a WYSIWYG way of editing > html pages. > > HTML editing should be as easy as writing a texmacs or a word document. It > should not any complicated than that! There is no misguidance there. nvu was > doing the job just fine. I was merely looking for a replacement for nvu. > OK. I guess it depends on how you define "easy" :-)
As long as you understand that HTML looks different in different browsers (even in different versions of the same browsers; and even then in the same versions of the same browsers if user have applied their own local CSS or greasemonkey scripts). Personally, opening up an HTML document in vi and hacking away at it is much easier than using a WYSIWYG editor. But then, I think that writing a LaTeX document in vi is much easier than editing a document in word or abiword or writer. At least, that holds true for anything but the most trivial documents. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
