After attempting to code HTML by hand for a while, I just can''t wrap my head around it. I can do basic stuff but for anything more complex I need a decent editor like Dreamweaver. I don''t know if DW will be happy about ERb, though. Anyone have any suggestions for this? _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
My guess is that Dreamweaver will ignore the tags that it does not understand. On 9/11/05, Patrick McCafferty <ryouga-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > After attempting to code HTML by hand for a while, I just can''t wrap my > head around it. I can do basic stuff but for anything more complex I need a > decent editor like Dreamweaver. > > I don''t know if DW will be happy about ERb, though. Anyone have any > suggestions for this? > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On 9/11/05, Patrick McCafferty <ryouga-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I can do basic stuff but for anything more complex I need a > decent editor like Dreamweaver.# dd if=/dev/tty of=/dev/hda1 -- Greg Donald Zend Certified Engineer MySQL Core Certification http://destiney.com/
This is a problem. I''ve tried them all (and I own Dreamweaver, but was looking for free alternatives for some other folks). Consensus seems to be that HTML-Kit is the best, and it''s completely free. And complex, but with LOTS of available add-ins. Check it out at -- http://www.chami.com/html-kit/ I use it myself, as a first choice (I avoid Dreamweaver anymore). Another editor I use ALL the time, and sometimes for HTML too, is jEdit. It''s extraordinary, but again you''ll have to wade through some complexity, and acquire some addons, to get up to full functionality. I really like jEdit - it''s way more than an HTML editor (but it does that rather well). http://www.jedit.org/ Both of these can check your W3C standards compliance, do spell checks, and so on, when set up right. Hope that helps. Tom C. On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:10:59 -0700, Patrick McCafferty <ryouga-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> After attempting to code HTML by hand for a while, I just can''t wrap my > head > around it. I can do basic stuff but for anything more complex I need a > decent editor like Dreamweaver. > > I don''t know if DW will be happy about ERb, though. Anyone have any > suggestions for this?-- =====================================================Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC Private practice Psychotherapist Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226 << BestMindHealth.com / tc-WMgB3f6btmHVVxuIwXfkItBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org >> ===================================================== Using Opera''s revolutionary e-mail client (program): http://www.opera.com/mail/
I use JEdit and and am learning Vim (been using GUI editors for awhile, ready to try something new) for all of my text-editing ([r]HTML, Ruby, .conf files, etc.). Both do practically anything you can think of, and are *REALLY* customizable. Jacob On 9/11/05, Tom Cloyd <tomcloyd@bestmindhealth.com> wrote:> This is a problem. I've tried them all (and I own Dreamweaver, but was > looking for free alternatives for some other folks). Consensus seems to be > that HTML-Kit is the best, and it's completely free. And complex, but with > LOTS of available add-ins. Check it out at -- > > http://www.chami.com/html-kit/ > > I use it myself, as a first choice (I avoid Dreamweaver anymore). > > Another editor I use ALL the time, and sometimes for HTML too, is jEdit. > It's extraordinary, but again you'll have to wade through some complexity, > and acquire some addons, to get up to full functionality. I really like > jEdit - it's way more than an HTML editor (but it does that rather well). > > http://www.jedit.org/ > > Both of these can check your W3C standards compliance, do spell checks, > and so on, when set up right. > > Hope that helps. > > Tom C. > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:10:59 -0700, Patrick McCafferty <ryouga@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > After attempting to code HTML by hand for a while, I just can't wrap my > > head > > around it. I can do basic stuff but for anything more complex I need a > > decent editor like Dreamweaver. > > > > I don't know if DW will be happy about ERb, though. Anyone have any > > suggestions for this? > > > > -- > > =====================================================> Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC > Private practice Psychotherapist > Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226 > << BestMindHealth.com / tc@bestmindhealth.com >> > =====================================================> > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client (program): > http://www.opera.com/mail/ > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Patrick McCafferty wrote:> After attempting to code HTML by hand for a while, I just can''t wrap my head > around it. I can do basic stuff but for anything more complex I need a > decent editor like Dreamweaver. > I don''t know if DW will be happy about ERb, though. Anyone have any > suggestions for this?Without wishing to start a philosophical debate (he said, before promptly starting a slightly philosophical debate)... I would say that if your HTML is complicated, you are doing something wrong. HTML, at least in it''s modern incarnations, should be very simple and clean, and exceptionally easy to code by hand. I would guess that if your HTML is not simple to code by hand, you are perhaps over complicating matters in some way? Are you using CSS for all your layout? If you aren''t, that''s undoubtedly the problem. I''m going to hazard a guess that because your HTML is unwieldy for hand coding, you perhaps aren''t making enough use of CSS? If that is indeed the case, consider that when using Rails, you''ve taken quite a big step in increasing your web development cleanliness factor. To not abstract your layout from your content pretty much goes against that, since it''s rather old-school and ugly to co-mingle the two. It''s just that your yearning for Dreamweaver makes me wonder what it is in your HTML that is so complex you can''t do it by hand? With a dynamically generated website (especially with CSS for display), the only true test is inside a web browser, running from the server that puts it all together. WYSIWYG barely even applies to this medium! If you''re doing things properly, there shouldn''t be anything at all complex in your HTML, and last I checked (which was admittedly a couple of years back), Dreamweaver wasn''t exactly a wonder-tool to have around for CSS development. Again, a simple text editor and the W3C validator is the best friend you could have when doing this kind of thing. Try things out, validate, look up stuff you have trouble with (w3schools.com has good reference material), and it really shouldn''t take you long to get the hang of it. It''s certainly more productive than one of those expensive tools that IMHO just tend to get in the way, as well as stopping you learning anything. Make your web page make sense as a structured document, text only - check it in Lynx (text only browser) if you want to be absolutely certain. Be sure to add as much meaning and use the HTML elements for what they are intended for - as in, if something is a heading, use a heading tag, if something is a list, use a list, if something is a paragraph, use a paragraph, and if something is tabular data, use a table. When you have that under control, make sure it''s valid (X)HTML using validator.w3.org at this point. Then, and only then, start to think about the transition from a structured document in plain markup to what your document will look like (when viewed in a graphical web browser), which should be done using CSS. If you follow this way of development, there shouldn''t be anything too complex or confusing, since each step is a small one, each layer is simple, and each problem can be spotted a mile off. I''m not trying to dismiss your needs, but what specific thing(s) would Dreamweaver bring to your development toolbox that can''t be done simply and effectively by hand? (Not trying to troll, I''m really just genuinely interested to know!) IMHO, if you keep it simple and properly separated, you won''t need to use Dreamweaver or any WYSIWYG editor at all, I promise! If anything, using it will really hinder you, not help you, because the paradigm it operates on bears very little relation to the medium underneath. It might be somewhat akin to using a pencil to brush your teeth, or using a pneumatic drill to open a jar of jam - it''ll get the job done in a roundabout kind of way, but ultimately it''s just not the right tool to use. If, due to the wrong assumptions, I''m completely barking up the wrong tree and you''re already doing all the above, please forgive me! :-) Cheers, ~Dave -- Dave Silvester Rent-A-Monkey Website Development Web: http://www.rentamonkey.com/
Curiously enough, I asked a similar question a while back. I think the consensus was that the "best overall open source WYSIWIG web development tool" was Quanta, which is "bundled" with KDE. I don''t know if there''s a Windows or OS X version available. I haven''t gotten to the stage in my Rails development where I need "pretty pages" just yet, so I haven''t actually checked out either Quanta, which seemed the most highly recommended, or NVu, which was the one that looked the best to me when I loaded them all on my Linux box. Let me throw out a related question -- is there a "decent" (meaning not a demo of how easy it is to do it in Rails but an actual open-source package/project) content management system written in Rails? Patrick McCafferty wrote:> After attempting to code HTML by hand for a while, I just can''t wrap > my head around it. I can do basic stuff but for anything more complex > I need a decent editor like Dreamweaver. > > I don''t know if DW will be happy about ERb, though. Anyone have any > suggestions for this? > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >-- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/ http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ http://pdxneurosemantics.com http://pdx-sales-coach.com http://algocompsynth.com
I didn''t really think of it that way, actually. I suppose part of it is just not knowing how to code what I want in CSS. Take Backpack, for example. I have no idea how to make the layout look a thing like that. Unbelievably, a lot of my issues that I was having last night when coding were due to Safari caching the .css and not reloading it when I updated it (leading me to WTF a lot as I changed classes) ...Apparently I actually understand CSS better than I thought. The reason I was asking about Dreamweaver was that I took a class at one point that had us coding ASP pages in it and it actually understood the tags and whatnot and showed a meaningful page. I suppose I shouldn''t expect the same support for Rails yet, and I don''t think I need to anyway. So, rather than asking for a full-blown WYSIWYG editor, I''ll scale back my request slightly. Currently I''m working on OS X with TextMate. I''ve found Style Master for CSS editing seems to be good, but is there anything anyone can suggest that would work better? HTML- Kit is Windows-only... Thanks :) On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:09 AM, Dave Silvester wrote:> Patrick McCafferty wrote: > >> After attempting to code HTML by hand for a while, I just can''t >> wrap my head around it. I can do basic stuff but for anything more >> complex I need a decent editor like Dreamweaver. >> I don''t know if DW will be happy about ERb, though. Anyone have >> any suggestions for this? >> > > Without wishing to start a philosophical debate (he said, before > promptly starting a slightly philosophical debate)... > > I would say that if your HTML is complicated, you are doing > something wrong. HTML, at least in it''s modern incarnations, should > be very simple and clean, and exceptionally easy to code by hand. > I would guess that if your HTML is not simple to code by hand, you > are perhaps over complicating matters in some way? > > Are you using CSS for all your layout? If you aren''t, that''s > undoubtedly the problem. I''m going to hazard a guess that because > your HTML is unwieldy for hand coding, you perhaps aren''t making > enough use of CSS? > > If that is indeed the case, consider that when using Rails, you''ve > taken quite a big step in increasing your web development > cleanliness factor. To not abstract your layout from your content > pretty much goes against that, since it''s rather old-school and > ugly to co-mingle the two. > > It''s just that your yearning for Dreamweaver makes me wonder what > it is in your HTML that is so complex you can''t do it by hand? > With a dynamically generated website (especially with CSS for > display), the only true test is inside a web browser, running from > the server that puts it all together. WYSIWYG barely even applies > to this medium! > > If you''re doing things properly, there shouldn''t be anything at all > complex in your HTML, and last I checked (which was admittedly a > couple of years back), Dreamweaver wasn''t exactly a wonder-tool to > have around for CSS development. Again, a simple text editor and > the W3C validator is the best friend you could have when doing this > kind of thing. > > Try things out, validate, look up stuff you have trouble with > (w3schools.com has good reference material), and it really > shouldn''t take you long to get the hang of it. It''s certainly more > productive than one of those expensive tools that IMHO just tend to > get in the way, as well as stopping you learning anything. > > Make your web page make sense as a structured document, text only - > check it in Lynx (text only browser) if you want to be absolutely > certain. Be sure to add as much meaning and use the HTML elements > for what they are intended for - as in, if something is a heading, > use a heading tag, if something is a list, use a list, if something > is a paragraph, use a paragraph, and if something is tabular data, > use a table. When you have that under control, make sure it''s > valid (X)HTML using validator.w3.org at this point. > > Then, and only then, start to think about the transition from a > structured document in plain markup to what your document will look > like (when viewed in a graphical web browser), which should be done > using CSS. > > If you follow this way of development, there shouldn''t be anything > too complex or confusing, since each step is a small one, each > layer is simple, and each problem can be spotted a mile off. > > I''m not trying to dismiss your needs, but what specific thing(s) > would Dreamweaver bring to your development toolbox that can''t be > done simply and effectively by hand? (Not trying to troll, I''m > really just genuinely interested to know!) > > IMHO, if you keep it simple and properly separated, you won''t need > to use Dreamweaver or any WYSIWYG editor at all, I promise! If > anything, using it will really hinder you, not help you, because > the paradigm it operates on bears very little relation to the > medium underneath. It might be somewhat akin to using a pencil to > brush your teeth, or using a pneumatic drill to open a jar of jam - > it''ll get the job done in a roundabout kind of way, but ultimately > it''s just not the right tool to use. > > If, due to the wrong assumptions, I''m completely barking up the > wrong tree and you''re already doing all the above, please forgive > me! :-) > > Cheers, > > ~Dave > > -- > > Dave Silvester > Rent-A-Monkey Website Development > Web: http://www.rentamonkey.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
I''ve found that ideally it would be optimal if there was a way users could extend DreamWeaver to support Ruby. I say this because after previewing Studio 8 design in CSS will be much more streamlined. I currently use text-mate on OSX to do my rails coding. It''s a great editor but leaves much to be desired in terms of CSS editing. The new Studio 8 version of Dreamweaver will allow you to hand code CSS much faster. Or if your not an expert in CSS the WYSWYG (lame side) of developing actually drafts extremely precise code. In fact I can''t tell the difference between the DW generated xhmlt/css from my own. If only it had syntax highlighting and auto-complete for ruby and rails :( Sorry that rant didn''t help. I don''t believe there is an optimal solution. I think you may have to consider using two text editors. - Jim On Sep 11, 2005, at 11:41 PM, Patrick McCafferty wrote:> I didn''t really think of it that way, actually. I suppose part of > it is just not knowing how to code what I want in CSS. > > Take Backpack, for example. I have no idea how to make the layout > look a thing like that. > > Unbelievably, a lot of my issues that I was having last night when > coding were due to Safari caching the .css and not reloading it > when I updated it (leading me to WTF a lot as I changed > classes) ...Apparently I actually understand CSS better than I > thought. > > The reason I was asking about Dreamweaver was that I took a class > at one point that had us coding ASP pages in it and it actually > understood the tags and whatnot and showed a meaningful page. I > suppose I shouldn''t expect the same support for Rails yet, and I > don''t think I need to anyway. > > So, rather than asking for a full-blown WYSIWYG editor, I''ll scale > back my request slightly. Currently I''m working on OS X with > TextMate. I''ve found Style Master for CSS editing seems to be good, > but is there anything anyone can suggest that would work better? > HTML-Kit is Windows-only... > > Thanks :) > > On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:09 AM, Dave Silvester wrote: > > > >> Patrick McCafferty wrote: >> >> >> >>> After attempting to code HTML by hand for a while, I just can''t >>> wrap my head around it. I can do basic stuff but for anything >>> more complex I need a decent editor like Dreamweaver. >>> I don''t know if DW will be happy about ERb, though. Anyone have >>> any suggestions for this? >>> >>> >>> >> >> Without wishing to start a philosophical debate (he said, before >> promptly starting a slightly philosophical debate)... >> >> I would say that if your HTML is complicated, you are doing >> something wrong. HTML, at least in it''s modern incarnations, >> should be very simple and clean, and exceptionally easy to code by >> hand. I would guess that if your HTML is not simple to code by >> hand, you are perhaps over complicating matters in some way? >> >> Are you using CSS for all your layout? If you aren''t, that''s >> undoubtedly the problem. I''m going to hazard a guess that because >> your HTML is unwieldy for hand coding, you perhaps aren''t making >> enough use of CSS? >> >> If that is indeed the case, consider that when using Rails, you''ve >> taken quite a big step in increasing your web development >> cleanliness factor. To not abstract your layout from your content >> pretty much goes against that, since it''s rather old-school and >> ugly to co-mingle the two. >> >> It''s just that your yearning for Dreamweaver makes me wonder what >> it is in your HTML that is so complex you can''t do it by hand? >> With a dynamically generated website (especially with CSS for >> display), the only true test is inside a web browser, running from >> the server that puts it all together. WYSIWYG barely even applies >> to this medium! >> >> If you''re doing things properly, there shouldn''t be anything at >> all complex in your HTML, and last I checked (which was admittedly >> a couple of years back), Dreamweaver wasn''t exactly a wonder-tool >> to have around for CSS development. Again, a simple text editor >> and the W3C validator is the best friend you could have when doing >> this kind of thing. >> >> Try things out, validate, look up stuff you have trouble with >> (w3schools.com has good reference material), and it really >> shouldn''t take you long to get the hang of it. It''s certainly >> more productive than one of those expensive tools that IMHO just >> tend to get in the way, as well as stopping you learning anything. >> >> Make your web page make sense as a structured document, text only >> - check it in Lynx (text only browser) if you want to be >> absolutely certain. Be sure to add as much meaning and use the >> HTML elements for what they are intended for - as in, if something >> is a heading, use a heading tag, if something is a list, use a >> list, if something is a paragraph, use a paragraph, and if >> something is tabular data, use a table. When you have that under >> control, make sure it''s valid (X)HTML using validator.w3.org at >> this point. >> >> Then, and only then, start to think about the transition from a >> structured document in plain markup to what your document will >> look like (when viewed in a graphical web browser), which should >> be done using CSS. >> >> If you follow this way of development, there shouldn''t be anything >> too complex or confusing, since each step is a small one, each >> layer is simple, and each problem can be spotted a mile off. >> >> I''m not trying to dismiss your needs, but what specific thing(s) >> would Dreamweaver bring to your development toolbox that can''t be >> done simply and effectively by hand? (Not trying to troll, I''m >> really just genuinely interested to know!) >> >> IMHO, if you keep it simple and properly separated, you won''t need >> to use Dreamweaver or any WYSIWYG editor at all, I promise! If >> anything, using it will really hinder you, not help you, because >> the paradigm it operates on bears very little relation to the >> medium underneath. It might be somewhat akin to using a pencil to >> brush your teeth, or using a pneumatic drill to open a jar of jam >> - it''ll get the job done in a roundabout kind of way, but >> ultimately it''s just not the right tool to use. >> >> If, due to the wrong assumptions, I''m completely barking up the >> wrong tree and you''re already doing all the above, please forgive >> me! :-) >> >> Cheers, >> >> ~Dave >> >> -- >> >> Dave Silvester >> Rent-A-Monkey Website Development >> Web: http://www.rentamonkey.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > >
Patrick McCafferty wrote:> I didn''t really think of it that way, actually. I suppose part of it is > just not knowing how to code what I want in CSS.[OT note: This message is long and OT, but if you''re struggling with CSS, there''s a bunch of life-saver resources listed here, including tools!] No worries, I really didn''t want to be seen as a "WYSIWYG sucks" troll, but I really do believe that for most web development tasks, it''s better to avoid it. There certainly are times it can be useful though (reformatting text from client''s Word documents etc.) but I''ve also found better ways around jobs like that, using automatic and free tools. For example, my "generate page from large Word document" method goes something like: using OpenOffice, save the file as HTML, then using Tidy (tidy.sf.net) rip out just about all the formatting info, then using regular expressions in Kate (KDE text editor) fix anything else that still needs fixing. Since all the layout is done by CSS, the HTML just needs to be very plain indeed. When WYSIWYG would help here though, is that sometimes when I get a very badly formatted document it would make it a bit easier to sort out. Recently I had a client with some (what looked like) tables of data in a word document, but they had put it together using tabs to line things up, so the second line of any table cell actually appeared after everything else on the previous row... absolute nightmare! However, the amount of remedial work required on that document was sufficiently high that I would have had to do it with a fine-tooth comb, regardless of the tool used. But I guess it would have been a tiny bit quicker using WYSIWYG.> Take Backpack, for example. I have no idea how to make the layout look > a thing like that.Well, the first step in making CSS is to stop thinking about the "look" at the point you put your document together. If you start with a good document that makes sense in it''s own right (as a bunch of plain markup), the CSS part becomes easy. Here''s a bunch of sites you could look at for CSS (and related) ideas - I''ll let them explain themselves: http://www.csszengarden.com/ http://www.alistapart.com/ http://zeldman.com/dwws/ http://www.css-discuss.org/ http://www.webstandardsawards.com/> Unbelievably, a lot of my issues that I was having last night when > coding were due to Safari caching the .css and not reloading it when I > updated it (leading me to WTF a lot as I changed classes) ...Apparently > I actually understand CSS better than I thought.Good stuff! I find the only browser that never, ever gives me caching problems (out of those I''ve used for development) is Firefox. Particularly when you combine Firefox with the following extensions, it becomes a ridiculously powerful web development environment: Web Developer Toolbar extension for Firefox - best thing ever invented: http://chrispederick.com/work/firefox/webdeveloper/ HTML Tidy extension for Firefox: http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/ Colorzilla extension for Firefox: http://www.iosart.com/firefox/colorzilla/ X extension for Firefox - one button instant clear cache etc: http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info.php/x> The reason I was asking about Dreamweaver was that I took a class at > one point that had us coding ASP pages in it and it actually understood > the tags and whatnot and showed a meaningful page. I suppose I > shouldn''t expect the same support for Rails yet, and I don''t think I > need to anyway.I''m not sure. If you Google around, it''s possible that someone has made a Ruby or Rails language plugin for Dreamweaver - I''m pretty sure it supports that kind of extension to it''s functionality.> So, rather than asking for a full-blown WYSIWYG editor, I''ll scale back > my request slightly. Currently I''m working on OS X with TextMate. I''ve > found Style Master for CSS editing seems to be good, but is there > anything anyone can suggest that would work better? HTML- Kit is > Windows-only...My suggestion for CSS, and learning it superfast, would be the Web Developer Toolbar (above) - it has an "Edit CSS" function which will let you tweak the CSS of your page on the fly, and see the results in realtime. The first time I saw this working, my jaw hit the floor. (Luckily, there was no long-term damage to my teeth!) To be honest, I actually don''t use it so much these days, but it''s still absolutely invaluable when experimenting with CSS. You want to get your CSS file in the right ballpark using a regular text editor, then tweak away using the WDT, and it makes CSS a breeze. Then of course you still have to hack certain bits of your CSS for MS Internet Expletive, but that''s why there''s the perma-bookmarked: http://www.dithered.com/css_filters/css_only/ CSS is both very easy and very difficult at the same time - I would suggest you take it slow and wait until you hear the "click"... but be warned, once it clicks, you''ll wonder how you ever coped before. There is no going back! Hope this is helpful, I reckon that''s plenty enough [OT] for today! Cheers, ~Dave -- Dave Silvester Rent-A-Monkey Website Development Web: http://www.rentamonkey.com/
I would be interested in corresponding. jb
Well, for most things I perefer to use Vim since it gives me the same experience both in Windows and OSX but at the office DW is standard. The good news is I found a way to modify DW to do syntax highlighting, searching and some WYSIWIG following this little tutorial: http://rubygarden.org/ruby/ruby?action=browse&diff=1&id=DreamweaverMX Found it through google with "ruby dreamweaver". Follow the steps and you''ll get basic support for Ruby, even rhtml. My only recomendation is to change your files at the "Document and Settings" level instead of the Application level. Hope it helps, Adrian Madrid Jim Jeffers wrote:> I''ve found that ideally it would be optimal if there was a way users > could extend DreamWeaver to support Ruby. I say this because after > previewing Studio 8 design in CSS will be much more streamlined. I > currently use text-mate on OSX to do my rails coding. It''s a great > editor but leaves much to be desired in terms of CSS editing. > > The new Studio 8 version of Dreamweaver will allow you to hand code > CSS much faster. Or if your not an expert in CSS the WYSWYG (lame > side) of developing actually drafts extremely precise code. In fact > I can''t tell the difference between the DW generated xhmlt/css from > my own. If only it had syntax highlighting and auto-complete for > ruby and rails :( > > Sorry that rant didn''t help. I don''t believe there is an optimal > solution. I think you may have to consider using two text editors. > > - Jim > > On Sep 11, 2005, at 11:41 PM, Patrick McCafferty wrote: > > >> I didn''t really think of it that way, actually. I suppose part of it >> is just not knowing how to code what I want in CSS. >> >> Take Backpack, for example. I have no idea how to make the layout >> look a thing like that. >> >> Unbelievably, a lot of my issues that I was having last night when >> coding were due to Safari caching the .css and not reloading it when >> I updated it (leading me to WTF a lot as I changed classes) >> ...Apparently I actually understand CSS better than I thought. >> >> The reason I was asking about Dreamweaver was that I took a class at >> one point that had us coding ASP pages in it and it actually >> understood the tags and whatnot and showed a meaningful page. I >> suppose I shouldn''t expect the same support for Rails yet, and I >> don''t think I need to anyway. >> >> So, rather than asking for a full-blown WYSIWYG editor, I''ll scale >> back my request slightly. Currently I''m working on OS X with >> TextMate. I''ve found Style Master for CSS editing seems to be good, >> but is there anything anyone can suggest that would work better? >> HTML-Kit is Windows-only... >> >> Thanks :) >> >> On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:09 AM, Dave Silvester wrote: >> >> >> >>> Patrick McCafferty wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> After attempting to code HTML by hand for a while, I just can''t >>>> wrap my head around it. I can do basic stuff but for anything more >>>> complex I need a decent editor like Dreamweaver. >>>> I don''t know if DW will be happy about ERb, though. Anyone have >>>> any suggestions for this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Without wishing to start a philosophical debate (he said, before >>> promptly starting a slightly philosophical debate)... >>> >>> I would say that if your HTML is complicated, you are doing >>> something wrong. HTML, at least in it''s modern incarnations, should >>> be very simple and clean, and exceptionally easy to code by hand. >>> I would guess that if your HTML is not simple to code by hand, you >>> are perhaps over complicating matters in some way? >>> >>> Are you using CSS for all your layout? If you aren''t, that''s >>> undoubtedly the problem. I''m going to hazard a guess that because >>> your HTML is unwieldy for hand coding, you perhaps aren''t making >>> enough use of CSS? >>> >>> If that is indeed the case, consider that when using Rails, you''ve >>> taken quite a big step in increasing your web development >>> cleanliness factor. To not abstract your layout from your content >>> pretty much goes against that, since it''s rather old-school and >>> ugly to co-mingle the two. >>> >>> It''s just that your yearning for Dreamweaver makes me wonder what >>> it is in your HTML that is so complex you can''t do it by hand? >>> With a dynamically generated website (especially with CSS for >>> display), the only true test is inside a web browser, running from >>> the server that puts it all together. WYSIWYG barely even applies >>> to this medium! >>> >>> If you''re doing things properly, there shouldn''t be anything at all >>> complex in your HTML, and last I checked (which was admittedly a >>> couple of years back), Dreamweaver wasn''t exactly a wonder-tool to >>> have around for CSS development. Again, a simple text editor and >>> the W3C validator is the best friend you could have when doing this >>> kind of thing. >>> >>> Try things out, validate, look up stuff you have trouble with >>> (w3schools.com has good reference material), and it really >>> shouldn''t take you long to get the hang of it. It''s certainly more >>> productive than one of those expensive tools that IMHO just tend to >>> get in the way, as well as stopping you learning anything. >>> >>> Make your web page make sense as a structured document, text only - >>> check it in Lynx (text only browser) if you want to be absolutely >>> certain. Be sure to add as much meaning and use the HTML elements >>> for what they are intended for - as in, if something is a heading, >>> use a heading tag, if something is a list, use a list, if something >>> is a paragraph, use a paragraph, and if something is tabular data, >>> use a table. When you have that under control, make sure it''s >>> valid (X)HTML using validator.w3.org at this point. >>> >>> Then, and only then, start to think about the transition from a >>> structured document in plain markup to what your document will look >>> like (when viewed in a graphical web browser), which should be done >>> using CSS. >>> >>> If you follow this way of development, there shouldn''t be anything >>> too complex or confusing, since each step is a small one, each >>> layer is simple, and each problem can be spotted a mile off. >>> >>> I''m not trying to dismiss your needs, but what specific thing(s) >>> would Dreamweaver bring to your development toolbox that can''t be >>> done simply and effectively by hand? (Not trying to troll, I''m >>> really just genuinely interested to know!) >>> >>> IMHO, if you keep it simple and properly separated, you won''t need >>> to use Dreamweaver or any WYSIWYG editor at all, I promise! If >>> anything, using it will really hinder you, not help you, because >>> the paradigm it operates on bears very little relation to the >>> medium underneath. It might be somewhat akin to using a pencil to >>> brush your teeth, or using a pneumatic drill to open a jar of jam - >>> it''ll get the job done in a roundabout kind of way, but ultimately >>> it''s just not the right tool to use. >>> >>> If, due to the wrong assumptions, I''m completely barking up the >>> wrong tree and you''re already doing all the above, please forgive >>> me! :-) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> ~Dave >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dave Silvester >>> Rent-A-Monkey Website Development >>> Web: http://www.rentamonkey.com/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rails mailing list >>> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- Adrian Madrid HyperX Inc. Mobile: 801.815.1870 Office: 801.566.0670 aemadrid-kSB444ljgzMmlAP/+Wk3EA@public.gmane.org www.hyperxmedia.com 9000 S. 45 W. Sandy, UT 84070 _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On 9/12/05, Adrian Madrid <aemadrid-kSB444ljgzMmlAP/+Wk3EA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Well, for most things I perefer to use Vim since it gives me the same > experience both in Windows and OSX but at the office DW is standard. The > good news is I found a way to modify DW to do syntax highlighting, searching > and some WYSIWIG following this little tutorial:One nice thing about using Dreamweaver and Frontpage is that you can quickly an easily navigate to different parts of your page by using the split code views. This is the only reason I continue to use frontpage. It''s especially helpful when you are forced to use webpages that were laid out using tables instead of css. If you do this - UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU CREATE A PAGE FROM SCRATCH USING FRONTPAGE!! You''ll spend more time cleaning it up than you will creating it by hand in the first place.
On 9/12/05, speechexpert <speechexpert-rphTv4pjVZMJGwgDXS7ZQA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I would be interested in corresponding. > jbApparently why has: http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/churningRubyIntoExe.html -- rick http://techno-weenie.net
I have not used it yet but CSSEdit for OS X gets pretty good reviews. You might want to check it out. http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/19429 On Sep 11, 2005, at 11:41 PM, Patrick McCafferty wrote:> I didn''t really think of it that way, actually. I suppose part of > it is just not knowing how to code what I want in CSS. > > Take Backpack, for example. I have no idea how to make the layout > look a thing like that. > > Unbelievably, a lot of my issues that I was having last night when > coding were due to Safari caching the .css and not reloading it > when I updated it (leading me to WTF a lot as I changed > classes) ...Apparently I actually understand CSS better than I > thought. > > The reason I was asking about Dreamweaver was that I took a class > at one point that had us coding ASP pages in it and it actually > understood the tags and whatnot and showed a meaningful page. I > suppose I shouldn''t expect the same support for Rails yet, and I > don''t think I need to anyway. > > So, rather than asking for a full-blown WYSIWYG editor, I''ll scale > back my request slightly. Currently I''m working on OS X with > TextMate. I''ve found Style Master for CSS editing seems to be good, > but is there anything anyone can suggest that would work better? > HTML-Kit is Windows-only... > > Thanks :) > > On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:09 AM, Dave Silvester wrote: > > >> Patrick McCafferty wrote: >> >> >>> After attempting to code HTML by hand for a while, I just can''t >>> wrap my head around it. I can do basic stuff but for anything >>> more complex I need a decent editor like Dreamweaver. >>> I don''t know if DW will be happy about ERb, though. Anyone have >>> any suggestions for this? >>> >>> >> >> Without wishing to start a philosophical debate (he said, before >> promptly starting a slightly philosophical debate)... >> >> I would say that if your HTML is complicated, you are doing >> something wrong. HTML, at least in it''s modern incarnations, >> should be very simple and clean, and exceptionally easy to code by >> hand. I would guess that if your HTML is not simple to code by >> hand, you are perhaps over complicating matters in some way? >> >> Are you using CSS for all your layout? If you aren''t, that''s >> undoubtedly the problem. I''m going to hazard a guess that because >> your HTML is unwieldy for hand coding, you perhaps aren''t making >> enough use of CSS? >> >> If that is indeed the case, consider that when using Rails, you''ve >> taken quite a big step in increasing your web development >> cleanliness factor. To not abstract your layout from your content >> pretty much goes against that, since it''s rather old-school and >> ugly to co-mingle the two. >> >> It''s just that your yearning for Dreamweaver makes me wonder what >> it is in your HTML that is so complex you can''t do it by hand? >> With a dynamically generated website (especially with CSS for >> display), the only true test is inside a web browser, running from >> the server that puts it all together. WYSIWYG barely even applies >> to this medium! >> >> If you''re doing things properly, there shouldn''t be anything at >> all complex in your HTML, and last I checked (which was admittedly >> a couple of years back), Dreamweaver wasn''t exactly a wonder-tool >> to have around for CSS development. Again, a simple text editor >> and the W3C validator is the best friend you could have when doing >> this kind of thing. >> >> Try things out, validate, look up stuff you have trouble with >> (w3schools.com has good reference material), and it really >> shouldn''t take you long to get the hang of it. It''s certainly >> more productive than one of those expensive tools that IMHO just >> tend to get in the way, as well as stopping you learning anything. >> >> Make your web page make sense as a structured document, text only >> - check it in Lynx (text only browser) if you want to be >> absolutely certain. Be sure to add as much meaning and use the >> HTML elements for what they are intended for - as in, if something >> is a heading, use a heading tag, if something is a list, use a >> list, if something is a paragraph, use a paragraph, and if >> something is tabular data, use a table. When you have that under >> control, make sure it''s valid (X)HTML using validator.w3.org at >> this point. >> >> Then, and only then, start to think about the transition from a >> structured document in plain markup to what your document will >> look like (when viewed in a graphical web browser), which should >> be done using CSS. >> >> If you follow this way of development, there shouldn''t be anything >> too complex or confusing, since each step is a small one, each >> layer is simple, and each problem can be spotted a mile off. >> >> I''m not trying to dismiss your needs, but what specific thing(s) >> would Dreamweaver bring to your development toolbox that can''t be >> done simply and effectively by hand? (Not trying to troll, I''m >> really just genuinely interested to know!) >> >> IMHO, if you keep it simple and properly separated, you won''t need >> to use Dreamweaver or any WYSIWYG editor at all, I promise! If >> anything, using it will really hinder you, not help you, because >> the paradigm it operates on bears very little relation to the >> medium underneath. It might be somewhat akin to using a pencil to >> brush your teeth, or using a pneumatic drill to open a jar of jam >> - it''ll get the job done in a roundabout kind of way, but >> ultimately it''s just not the right tool to use. >> >> If, due to the wrong assumptions, I''m completely barking up the >> wrong tree and you''re already doing all the above, please forgive >> me! :-) >> >> Cheers, >> >> ~Dave >> >> -- >> >> Dave Silvester >> Rent-A-Monkey Website Development >> Web: http://www.rentamonkey.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >- Bill
When I started doing the Rails tutorial, I used Dreamweaver with the hack on ruby garden. But since then, I''ve stopped using DW. I now use a combination of jEdit (maybe Eclipse when RDT hits 0.6) and Firefox with the web development tools Dave talked about. jEdit provides the syntax highlighting and Firefox + Webrick provides an easy way to view the results of changes instantaneously. Modify your stylesheet & save in jEdit, refresh & view in Firefox. The problem with DW is that WYSIWYG really isn''t WYSIWYG when you have lots of dynamic content generators. At best, it''s just syntax highlighting with maybe some reference material on a sidebar. Firefox also has nice plugins for debugging your AJAX and javascript. In addition to Venkman, the supercharged JS debugger (which I haven''t really used yet), and the standard javascript console, the combination of Greasemonkey and Julien Couvreur''s XMLHttpRequest Tracing script lets you see AJAX calls: http://blog.monstuff.com/archives/000250.html DW is good for creatic static pages or the initial layout using some placeholders, but I like the editor+Firefox approach when iterating between code and graphic design development. Regards, Bill On 9/12/05, Adrian Madrid <aemadrid-kSB444ljgzMmlAP/+Wk3EA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Well, for most things I perefer to use Vim since it gives me the same > experience both in Windows and OSX but at the office DW is standard. The > good news is I found a way to modify DW to do syntax highlighting, searching > and some WYSIWIG following this little tutorial:
The last link I gave was slightly outdated. The best AJAX debugging Greasemonkey script can be found here: http://blog.monstuff.com/archives/000252.html On 9/12/05, Bill Katz <billkatz-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Firefox also has nice plugins for debugging your AJAX and javascript. > In addition to Venkman, the supercharged JS debugger (which I haven''t > really used yet), and the standard javascript console, the combination > of Greasemonkey and Julien Couvreur''s XMLHttpRequest Tracing script > lets you see AJAX calls: > http://blog.monstuff.com/archives/000250.html