TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> I thought it'd be pretty nice to have an HTML editor -- see codes in
> color, flip over to wysiwyg mode and back again... Boy was I wrong!
> Call me a geek if you must. I'll stick with WordPad. %-\
I couldn't agree more! I've tried a couple of the so-called
"WYSIWYG" HTML editors and found that they generate
really sloppy HTML mark-up AND THEN WON'T LET YOU
FIX IT. It's like working with a word-processor that insists
on mis-spelling words. I think they're a curse.
For those of you who aren't HTML purists --- WYSIWYG editors
(like FrontPage) tend to generate pages that may:
- load more slowly (because of redundant or bad tags), and
- display improperly on different types and versions of browsers.
I like HomeSite. It has nice little automated features for adding links,
graphics, tables, etc., but gives you complete control over the mark-up.
If I had to translate a lot of stuff into HTML at once, I might use a
WYSIWYG editor to do all of the initial markup, but then I'd open
the files in a text file or non-WYSIWYG editor to fix them
(maybe -- but then again I find that it's usually faster to do the
mark-up by hand than to fix the mark-up a WYSISYG editor