Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Knowledge Base
Documentation
Terry's Tips
Darren's Tips

Denbest.nu article

Let me be the first to bring  http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/08/Intrusivetools.shtml  to your attention.

What do you think?

-Bob

Bob Bloom
Friday, August 29, 2003

Short answer: Overreaction.

Long answer:

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=67255&ixReplies=16

:)

John C
Friday, August 29, 2003

I agree with Steve.

The extra tags drive me bonkers.

XHTML (XML?) compliance doesn't matter to me. I think it's a great feature. But now that I think of it, why can't I turn that feature off if I don't want it?



-Bob

Bob Bloom
Friday, August 29, 2003

By using Normal View, you're asking CityDesk to compile your wysiwyg actions into HTML for you.  If you want absolute control over the final HTML, use HTML View.

All this sturm-und-drang over Normal View is a bit like people wanting to code in C but also wanting to specify which cpu registers their variables reside in.

"No, you piece of [censored]! Variable iFoo goes in ECX, not EAX! Argh!"

Pat Rice
Friday, August 29, 2003

There's no preview like in FrontPage, so why wouldn't I go to Normal view?

I create a table in FP. I copy the html in FP's html view.
I paste-without-formatting the html in CD's html view.
I type in more text in the table in normal view.
I tweak the html in CD's html view instead of reverting back to FP, but it ain't quite the same html.

I would rather do all my editing in FP if that meant V2 final had a built-in breadcrumb variable, if there were more fields, etc. Y'know, the stuff I came to CD for.

Bob Bloom
Friday, August 29, 2003

One of the things I always hated about FrontPage was the garbage html that it produced. I'd rate notepad over FrontPage any day! (That was a joke, btw).

John C
Friday, August 29, 2003

There is a "Save and Preview" button on the toolbar, if that's all you want to do.

Tim Sullivan
Friday, August 29, 2003

I've got to say I was a bit disappointed that CD2 decided to go to compulsory XHTML. I have been producing valid HTML with CD1, and I'd prefer not to have to change all my templates to make valid XHTML. Ever since all the scary "you've got to change to XHTML" articles started coming out I've been studying the issue, and so far I've found the arguments for XHTML 1 over HTML 4 to be pretty vaporous. I'm going to stick with CD1 for a while longer.

Peter Riis
Friday, August 29, 2003

You know, there's nothing wrong with keeping your old templates and using CD2 and not having valid html or xhtml generated. It's not as if having a site that doesn't validate (but looks fine in every browser) will mean you'll be getting a visit from the standard police at 4am some morning...

John C
Saturday, August 30, 2003

John-- You're quite right. I'm not a fanatic, but I do find validation is a good way to catch a lot of my coding mistakes (mistakes that would have real-world ramifications beyond simply being invalid). It's the only check I've got beyond looking at pages with the couple browsers I have installed.

Peter Riis
Saturday, August 30, 2003

This is all sort of amusing.

So far I've seen a few wacky things, but nothing to get in a bunch about one way or the other.  The entity translation is the goofiest thing, but thowing in a few variable-expansions here and there is no worse than typing the danged entities was anyhow.

If only I was up to telling the Netscrape 4.x users to bugger off once and for all... well, then I might have time to worry about <small> tags floating about and such.

Bob Riemersma
Sunday, August 31, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home