«

I need to find an HTML /Page editor for an associate. Mostly he will
be working with existing templates to enter content (text and
graphics) in a rough WYSIWYG mode. He will need to be able to use
basic HTML tags (formatting, links), use CSS text formatting with a
link (pre-defined) style file, insert pictures and links in WYSIWYG
mode, work with basic tables, table column dragging would be good. It
needs WYSIWYG (reasonably well done) and HTML source mode. It needs to
_not_ trash existing Javascript hooks but does not need to create any
JS or CSS-P capabilities.

Ideas? MS-FP would work but it has a lot of overhead that you have to
tolerate and periodically strip and he's anti-MS (Linux guy) so he
won't want that (I use MS-FP, I know . I tried NVU and it is very
close to what I need but it does not handle CSS on <p> tags - all the
CSS text formatting has to be done on <span> tags unless you work in
HTML mode. HTML mode is difficult because when you switch into it, it
always places you at the top of the source - not where you are editing
in the WYSIWYG mode. Unusable on large pages.

Shareware would be best, I need to test drive before any purchase is
made.

Thanks

Bob <> wrote:

>I need to find an HTML /Page editor for an associate. Mostly he will
>be working with existing templates to enter content (text and
>graphics) in a rough WYSIWYG mode. He will need to be able to use
>basic HTML tags (formatting, links), use CSS text formatting with a
>link (pre-defined) style file, insert pictures and links in WYSIWYG
>mode, work with basic tables, table column dragging would be good. It
>needs WYSIWYG (reasonably well done) and HTML source mode. It needs to
>_not_ trash existing Javascript hooks but does not need to create any
>JS or CSS-P capabilities.
>
>Ideas? MS-FP would work but it has a lot of overhead that you have to
>tolerate and periodically strip and he's anti-MS (Linux guy) so he
>won't want that (I use MS-FP, I know . I tried NVU and it is very
>close to what I need but it does not handle CSS on <p> tags - all the
>CSS text formatting has to be done on <span> tags unless you work in
>HTML mode. HTML mode is difficult because when you switch into it, it
>always places you at the top of the source - not where you are editing
>in the WYSIWYG mode. Unusable on large pages.
>
>Shareware would be best, I need to test drive before any purchase is
>made.
You can get a thirty day trial of Dreamweaver
<http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=dreamweaver>
but they don't have a Linux version.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:39:18 GMT, David Segall <>
wrote:

>Bob <> wrote:
>
>>I need to find an HTML /Page editor for an associate. Mostly he will
>>be working with existing templates to enter content (text and
>>graphics) in a rough WYSIWYG mode. He will need to be able to use
>>basic HTML tags (formatting, links), use CSS text formatting with a
>>link (pre-defined) style file, insert pictures and links in WYSIWYG
>>mode, work with basic tables, table column dragging would be good. It
>>needs WYSIWYG (reasonably well done) and HTML source mode. It needs to
>>_not_ trash existing Javascript hooks but does not need to create any
>>JS or CSS-P capabilities.
>>
>>Ideas? MS-FP would work but it has a lot of overhead that you have to
>>tolerate and periodically strip and he's anti-MS (Linux guy) so he
>>won't want that (I use MS-FP, I know . I tried NVU and it is very
>>close to what I need but it does not handle CSS on <p> tags - all the
>>CSS text formatting has to be done on <span> tags unless you work in
>>HTML mode. HTML mode is difficult because when you switch into it, it
>>always places you at the top of the source - not where you are editing
>>in the WYSIWYG mode. Unusable on large pages.
>>
>>Shareware would be best, I need to test drive before any purchase is
>>made.
>You can get a thirty day trial of Dreamweaver
><http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=dreamweaver>
>but they don't have a Linux version.

He does daily work on Windows so a linux version is not needed but DW
is overkill at $300. He isn't doing serious development, just page
editing. Need something a bit lighter.

Thanks,

Why can't he go on eBay and find an older version of Dreamweaver for
well under $100.00.? I would look for Dreamweaver MX or MX 2004.

"attitudes" <> wrote:

>Why can't he go on eBay and find an older version of Dreamweaver for
>well under $100.00.? I would look for Dreamweaver MX or MX 2004.
I think that only Dreamweaver 8 includes the brilliant CSS view. It
shows you, and allows you to change, the source of all the styles that
affect the selected element in the current HTML or GUI view. I'd go
for an academic and/or upgrade version.

He Can try this. It is the free version. They also have an upgrade
which comes w/ a free trial. I hope this helps.
http://www.bradsoft.com/topstyle/tslite/fullver.asp

On 28 Jan 2006 07:57:59 -0800, "attitudes" <>
wrote:

>Why can't he go on eBay and find an older version of Dreamweaver for
>well under $100.00.? I would look for Dreamweaver MX or MX 2004.


That's an interesting thought... Maybe I will look in that direction.

On 28 Jan 2006 09:12:29 -0800, "attitudes" <>
wrote:

>He Can try this. It is the free version. They also have an upgrade
>which comes w/ a free trial. I hope this helps.
>http://www.bradsoft.com/topstyle/tslite/fullver.asp

Thanks, will check.

Bob wrote:

> I need to find an HTML /Page editor for an associate. Mostly he will
> be working with existing templates to enter content (text and
> graphics) in a rough WYSIWYG mode. He will need to be able to use
> basic HTML tags (formatting, links), use CSS text formatting with a
> link (pre-defined) style file, insert pictures and links in WYSIWYG
> mode, work with basic tables, table column dragging would be good. It
> needs WYSIWYG (reasonably well done) and HTML source mode. It needs to
> _not_ trash existing Javascript hooks but does not need to create any
> JS or CSS-P capabilities.
I like NVU. http://www.nvu.com
It's a good program, it also has CSS capeabilities.
It's also easyer to edit pages in NVU then in DW and produces Valid
Code.

>
> Ideas? MS-FP would work but it has a lot of overhead that you have to
> tolerate and periodically strip and he's anti-MS (Linux guy) so he
> won't want that (I use MS-FP, I know . I tried NVU and it is very
> close to what I need but it does not handle CSS on <p> tags - all the
> CSS text formatting has to be done on <span> tags unless you work in
> HTML mode. HTML mode is difficult because when you switch into it, it
> always places you at the top of the source - not where you are editing
Out of interest, why the hell don't you just let him decide for
himself. NVU is Cross platform compadable, which means it can work on
both Windows and Linux.

> in the WYSIWYG mode. Unusable on large pages.
It would not be if you had an external Stylesheet and just edit that
too make site-wide changes.
Also if the site is going to be that large, I'd just use a CMS. Such as
Mambo.

>
> Shareware would be best, I need to test drive before any purchase is
> made.
I take it you don't care about Spyware then?

>
> Thanks
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

On 28 Jan 2006 21:54:05 -0800, "Chaddy2222"
<> wrote:

>Out of interest, why the hell don't you just let him decide for
>himself. NVU is Cross platform compadable, which means it can work on
>both Windows and Linux.

Yeah... I know... I might just do that. It's the best I've found. I've
tested a whole bunch of other tools and all I can say is that some
people have a really, really strange idea of how to build a user
interface.

>> in the WYSIWYG mode. Unusable on large pages.
>It would not be if you had an external Stylesheet and just edit that
>too make site-wide changes.
>Also if the site is going to be that large, I'd just use a CMS. Such as
>Mambo.

It's not the site size, just the page size. Also, I do have an
external stylesheet - but I need to see what style an element (<p>)
has applied to it.

I've discovered that you can see the CSS on the paragraphs in tag view
if you check each tag. Not exactly wonderful, but usable. Also, if you
go to tag view first then it will index to the proper part of the page
when you go to source view, so that might be a reasonable work around.