Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Knowledge Base
Documentation
Terry's Tips
Darren's Tips

Feature request: quotedattributefields consistency

Excuse running together - field width constraints :-)

Thanks for the improved editor behaviour in 2.03. It really helps. Even more would be better but I don't want to appear ungrateful :-)

One irritation: the inconsistency of quoted values. Quoted values are always required in XHTML, and are recommended in HTML 4 where they are not already required.

Since AFAIK they are never incorrect in HTML 4, is there any reasons why the attribute handling code should not deafult to always quoting values?

I appreciate that this may constitute rewriting users' code, but since it's doing the opposite behaviour at present, and this does break XHTML, I'd request you to consider this.

It should also allow a bit of code simplification, I'd have thought...

MeJ

James Roberts
Monday, May 26, 2003

Hmm, one of these days there should be a CityDesk Feature Request FAQ.

The short version is that we don't actually control the HTML generation, that is done by Internet Explorer. That's how we maintain a high degree of WYSIWYG-ness: it is Internet Explorer itself showing you the Normal Mode of CityDesk's editor, which is why virtually everything looks exactly like it will look in IE.

As a result we have almost no control over the style of HTML that is generated. We could, theoretically, rewrite the HTML that we got back from Internet Explorer to be more xhtml-like, but honestly for the target audience that CityDesk is intended for, it's a very low priority.

Joel Spolsky
Tuesday, May 27, 2003

>Hmm, one of these days there should be a CityDesk >Feature Request FAQ.

>The short version is that we don't actually control the HTML >generation, that is done by Internet Explorer

Ah. Well.

>...but honestly for the target audience that CityDesk is >intended for, it's a very low priority.

I see.

Err... is it too late to ask for my money back?

:-)

Because plainly I'll have to move on to another product that actually *is* a CMS and that Manages the Content *I* want to create - not the content it's prepared to let me use.

IMHO a CMS is not a *general* CMS if it is going to break my valid code,  rewrite my attribute values without the quotes I have decided to insert, and be strictly dependant on code generated by a partially standards-compliant Internet Browser.

I need to work with a system that does not have these limitations. Obviously I'm not the target audience.

The CityDesk blurb states: "...With CityDesk, you define the layout and appearance of the site once..." but this isn't true. I define it, and CityDesk rewrites it. I had put this down to v1.0 behaviour, but if this *isn't* going to change - I'll move on.

It's more than 90 days, so I guess I've blown it. It would have been nice if this had been made clear earlier.

I'm downloading Contribute to see if it has the same limitations.

An irritated MeJ

James Roberts
Thursday, May 29, 2003

Yes, Yes, Yes--A feature request FAQ is a desperately needed web site feature, as is an updated knowledgebase ;)

David Burch
Thursday, May 29, 2003

Phew. Angry customer. Why not drop Joel an e-mail if you really want your money back.

As far as I'm concerned, CityDesk was money well spent. It does what it does better than anything else on the market.

www.MarkTAW.com
Thursday, May 29, 2003

Right. I've checked out Contribute. It's the usual Macromedia thing - a mixture of 'brilliant' and 'braindead'.

Brilliant features:

1. Fully customisable interface. I can build a front page and set of templates and customise the whole thing so that even the sales staff may be able to use it
2. XML definition of all of this
3. Really easy website editing, that can be locked down so that even the sales staff can not break it

Braindead features:

a. It only will talk to the website with FTP. This is 2003, right? But FTP only. Whoops, there's another CMS that does that too...

b. Only the US exists for Macromedia. Languages? Pah! They can speak (US) English!

This is just a first impression.

So CityDesk still fits my needs better. I need to publish in at least two languages (and sometimes more), and the publish cycle in Contribute is no more amenable to my methods than is CityDesk.

Joel: I'm sorry if my profile does not fit your target audience projections.

However I am an *actual* customer who has paid *actual* $$.

Can I please have an HTML editor that works?

And there are several other clients of yours that have put forward the same request, so I don't think I'm completely mad in asking for this...

MeJ

James Roberts
Thursday, May 29, 2003

I was a beta tester for Contribute. I thought it sucked then, and haven't looked at it since.

As a developer, Dreamweaver Teamplates are a lot better bang for my buck, though I wouldn't hand it over to the content providers the same way I would CityDesk.

www.MarkTAW.com
Thursday, May 29, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home