Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

Reply
Thread Tools

HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

 
 
Nik Coughlin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2007
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Does someone know a free, downloadable HTML 2.0 editor/composer for
> Windows? It would be nice if it followed the HTML 2.0 standard.


Notepad++


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2007
On 17 Jun, 14:22, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Does someone know a free, downloadable HTML 2.0 editor/composer for
> Windows? It would be nice if it followed the HTML 2.0 standard.


Emacs surely?

If you have any _possible_ rational reason for using HTML 2.0, it's
surely related to some historical academic interest. If so, a text
editor and a DTD-based validator would seem most appropriate.

There is _no_ good reason to author in HTML 2.0 other than the
historical curiosity though. Counter-examples would be very
interesting.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Toby A Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2007
erkkikosonen wrote:

> I find these ancient rules better than those of today. Why does
> everything have to be new and fancy?


Try HTML 4.0 Strict. It was published (if I recall correctly) in 1997 so
it should satisfy your desire for something ancient.

If you avoid using the following elements:

<link rel="stylesheet">
<style>
<script>
<applet>
<object>
<iframe>

then you should be able to produce pages that work flawlessly even on
Mosaic 1.0. (Trust me: I do test extensively in old browsers. I have
a beta of Mosaic 0.6 for testing.)

When it comes to supporting really old browsers, if you author as above,
the real problem you're likely to hit against is that many of them only
support HTTP/1.0 and do not send an HTTP "Host" header as part of their
requests. (The "Host" header was optional in HTTP/1.0, but is required in
HTTP/1.1. Mosaic didn't start sending this header until 2.x IIRC.) If
you're using shared hosting, this will mean your site is completely
inaccessible to older browsers -- the HTTP is the problem, not the HTML.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 114 days, 17:01.]

You're Not Allowed to Take Pictures of the US Embassy in Rome
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/06/16/us-embassy/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2007
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:18:48 GMT dorayme scribed:

>> > I find these ancient rules better than those of today. Why does
>> > everything have to be new and fancy?

>>
>> Yeah. I liked it better when the Earth was flat, too. 'Didn't roll
>> off the bed so much when I came home Friday nights.

>
> No, you have it wrong. It is more like the desire for simpler
> older cars than something idiotically irrational.


Which class would you put "getting a horse" in?

Actually, no, _you_ have it wrong. It is idiotically irrational.

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bergamot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2007
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> As I remember, Netscape would not display a table if any parts of
> elements were missing, such as </table>.


NS 4.x had known problems with the optional closing tags. It got very
confused if a </tr> or </td> was missing.

--
Berg
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2007
In article
<Xns99532F6B8B197nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190. 161>,
Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> > I find these ancient rules better than those of today. Why does
> >> > everything have to be new and fancy?
> >>
> >> Yeah. I liked it better when the Earth was flat, too. 'Didn't roll
> >> off the bed so much when I came home Friday nights.

> >
> > No, you have it wrong. It is more like the desire for simpler
> > older cars than something idiotically irrational.

>
> Which class would you put "getting a horse" in?
>
> Actually, no, _you_ have it wrong. It is idiotically irrational.


<odd_couple_talk>

Here we go again... Boji! The earth was never ever flat. And you
don't roll off the bed any worse on a big heavy ball. Trust me I
know, I have been to planets, some flat ones too. You don't know
what the OP really is doing and he may be just wanting to take a
ride in a really old car. That should get your respect if not
admiration. Please, from now on, do me a favour, run your posts
past me before posting them. Make a webpage with login facilities
and simple content management where I can vet your proposed posts.

</odd_couple_talk>

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2007
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:34:15 GMT dorayme scribed:

>> Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, no, _you_ have it wrong. It is idiotically irrational.


> <odd_couple_talk>
>
> Here we go again... Boji! The earth was never ever flat. And you
> don't roll off the bed any worse on a big heavy ball. Trust me I
> know, I have been to planets, some flat ones too.


I once visited a planet so flat that even Viagra was useless.

> You don't know
> what the OP really is doing and he may be just wanting to take a
> ride in a really old car.


Actually, he made his mind very plain when stating he preferred the old
rules.

> That should get your respect if not admiration.


Not hardly. The old rules don't and never did work better than the new
rules.

> Please, from now on, do me a favour, run your posts
> past me before posting them. Make a webpage with login facilities
> and simple content management where I can vet your proposed posts.
>
> </odd_couple_talk>


Would you inhibit free speech, freedom of thought, and the right of
normal human beings worldwide to avoid some crazy Australian woman who,
though intelligent, seems to have a few decidely sinuous kinks in her
synpotic rete?

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2007
In article
<Xns99543271E4E0nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.1 61>,
Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Please, from now on, do me a favour, run your posts
> > past me before posting them. Make a webpage with login facilities
> > and simple content management where I can vet your proposed posts.
> >
> > </odd_couple_talk>

>
> Would you inhibit free speech, freedom of thought,


Well, frankly, yes. There are special circumstances where a bit
of curbature would be beneficial on the whole. Sending Officer
White around to you so often is so indirect. I would prefer
better control. For the greater good, mind you.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
To change the default font of HTML editor kit without altering the edited HTML Daniel Polansky Java 0 10-11-2004 05:16 PM
ANN: New low-cost XML Editor, XSLT Editor, XSLT Debugger, DTD/Schema Editor Stylus Studio Java 0 08-03-2004 03:53 PM
ANN: New low-cost XML Editor, XSLT Debugger, DTD/Schema Editor Stylus Studio XML 0 08-03-2004 03:21 PM
XML Editor WYSIWYG Word processor-like validating XML Editor ?! Hatem KNANI XML 2 08-04-2003 03:22 PM



Advertisments