Discussion:
Any recommendations for an xhtml editor
(too old to reply)
Mike Hingley
2013-01-03 23:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Hello people...

I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for a wysiwyg editor for ubuntu? Ideally I was looking for something like kompozer, but without the KDE requirement (it does have a KDE requirement right?)

cheers!

Mike Hingley



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130103/42e59418/attachment.html>
Andrew Savin
2013-01-04 00:44:17 UTC
Permalink
On 03/01/13 23:55, Mike Hingley wrote:
> Hello people...
>
> I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for a wysiwyg editor
> for ubuntu? Ideally I was looking for something like kompozer, but
> without the KDE requirement (it does have a KDE requirement right?)
>
> cheers!
>
> Mike Hingley
>
>
>
>
Hi

After having a look around I found this

http://bluegriffon.org/

Not tried it myself but seems to be under current development - some of
the other Ubuntu options seem to be dead in the water.

Hope this helps

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130104/db515016/attachment.html>
Sean Miller
2013-01-04 06:16:01 UTC
Permalink
XHTML is markup... there is not really such a thing as a "WYSIWYG"...
anything you use is gong to, ultimately, give you an inferior end result to
simply writing the XHTML from scratch.

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130104/87cc03f5/attachment.html>
Alan Lord
2013-01-04 07:53:36 UTC
Permalink
On 04/01/13 06:16, Sean Miller wrote:
> XHTML is markup... there is not really such a thing as a "WYSIWYG"...
> anything you use is gong to, ultimately, give you an inferior end result
> to simply writing the XHTML from scratch.

+1

I have tried (in the long and distant past) various so called "wysiwyg"
editors and all of them made really appalling markup. IMHO it's far
better to learn the right way and just write clean markup.

Open gedit, open Firefox/Chrome and you are off. :-)

Al
kpb
2013-01-05 18:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Hello Mike, Alan and all

I understand the logic of Alan's reply, but I use a slightly indirect approach.

I 'design'(*) templates and then write text marked up in either 'markdown' or 'textile' markup formats. A couple of bash scripts convert my markdown/textile to html and add the resulting marked up snippet to a page template. I also use a simple script to generate a page index. The result will always be valid html, and I don't have to type the blasted < and >.

There are a number of 'static Web page generators' around now that allow much more sophisticated templating and layout.

(*) 'design' used loosely.

Cheers

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:53:36 +0000
Alan Lord <alanslists at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 04/01/13 06:16, Sean Miller wrote:
> > XHTML is markup... there is not really such a thing as a "WYSIWYG"...
> > anything you use is gong to, ultimately, give you an inferior end result
> > to simply writing the XHTML from scratch.
>
> +1
>
> I have tried (in the long and distant past) various so called "wysiwyg"
> editors and all of them made really appalling markup. IMHO it's far
> better to learn the right way and just write clean markup.
>
> Open gedit, open Firefox/Chrome and you are off. :-)
>
> Al
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-uk at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
>

Cheers
--
kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 19:20:14 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 18:48, kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk> wrote:

> I 'design'(*) templates and then write text marked up in either 'markdown'
> or 'textile' markup formats. A couple of bash scripts convert my
> markdown/textile to html and add the resulting marked up snippet to a page
> template. I also use a simple script to generate a page index. The result
> will always be valid html, and I don't have to type the blasted < and >.
>

Regardless, it may be "valid html" but I would argue that it'll be very
"overcomplicated" HTML, and thus very inefficient.

Somebody at some stage might want to maintain it, too - have you tried to
manually edit "generated HTML"? In most cases I've found it impossible to
fathom.

Can you provide some links to some of your sites with this "generated"
HTML, so that we can establish whether it's actually worth considering or
whether our advice (ie. to LEARN (x)HTML) is the right advice.

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/659f8241/attachment.html>
kpb
2013-01-05 19:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Hello Sean and all

While Markdown/textile are pretty light, my personal site isn't pretty :-)

http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/

(The Llamas are a family joke). The method currently in use is described here

http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/pages/publish-a-web-site-with-bash-scripts.html

More ambitious 'static page' html generators, probably for people doing *large* sites with greater expectations as to 'design' and production values.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4857473

cheers

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 19:20:14 +0000
Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net> wrote:

> On 5 January 2013 18:48, kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > I 'design'(*) templates and then write text marked up in either 'markdown'
> > or 'textile' markup formats. A couple of bash scripts convert my
> > markdown/textile to html and add the resulting marked up snippet to a page
> > template. I also use a simple script to generate a page index. The result
> > will always be valid html, and I don't have to type the blasted < and >.
> >
>
> Regardless, it may be "valid html" but I would argue that it'll be very
> "overcomplicated" HTML, and thus very inefficient.
>
> Somebody at some stage might want to maintain it, too - have you tried to
> manually edit "generated HTML"? In most cases I've found it impossible to
> fathom.
>
> Can you provide some links to some of your sites with this "generated"
> HTML, so that we can establish whether it's actually worth considering or
> whether our advice (ie. to LEARN (x)HTML) is the right advice.
>
> Sean


--
kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 20:16:14 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 19:28, kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk> wrote:

> Hello Sean and all
>
> While Markdown/textile are pretty light, my personal site isn't pretty :-)
>
> http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/
>
> (The Llamas are a family joke). The method currently in use is described
> here
>
> http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/pages/publish-a-web-site-with-bash-scripts.html


I don't see any WYSIWYG editor in action here at all, yet you said that you
used one to produce your "templates".

Can you link to a template-based site that you've built using a WYSIWYG
editor?

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/d50afe10/attachment.html>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 20:18:09 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 20:16, Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net> wrote:

> On 5 January 2013 19:28, kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hello Sean and all
>>
>> While Markdown/textile are pretty light, my personal site isn't pretty :-)
>>
>> http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/
>>
>> (The Llamas are a family joke). The method currently in use is described
>> here
>>
>> http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/pages/publish-a-web-site-with-bash-scripts.html
>
>
> I don't see any WYSIWYG editor in action here at all, yet you said that
> you used one to produce your "templates".
>
> Can you link to a template-based site that you've built using a WYSIWYG
> editor?
>

I'm just interested to see what the code generated by the WYSIWYGs you're
advocating looks like, not pages generated by your shell script thing which
is not what the original thread was about.

I stick with my argument that it is better to learn (X)HTML if one is
trying to write markup than some third-party "WYSIWYG" where what you see
will only be what you get on one browser (if you're lucky).

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/787edb55/attachment.html>
kpb
2013-01-05 20:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Hello Sean

I was replying to Alan Lord, who was suggesting direct editing of xhtml markup. Do you not see the replies in threaded mode? I suggested using a 'light' markup with script based conversion to html and my point was that this reduces the silly errors you get from direct markup.

I do not generally use visual editors, although the page at

http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/pages/probability-vocabulary-and-basics.html

was produced using OpenOffice directly.

cheers

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 20:18:09 +0000
Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net> wrote:

> On 5 January 2013 20:16, Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net> wrote:
>
> > On 5 January 2013 19:28, kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Sean and all
> >>
> >> While Markdown/textile are pretty light, my personal site isn't pretty :-)
> >>
> >> http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/
> >>
> >> (The Llamas are a family joke). The method currently in use is described
> >> here
> >>
> >> http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/pages/publish-a-web-site-with-bash-scripts.html
> >
> >
> > I don't see any WYSIWYG editor in action here at all, yet you said that
> > you used one to produce your "templates".
> >
> > Can you link to a template-based site that you've built using a WYSIWYG
> > editor?
> >
>
> I'm just interested to see what the code generated by the WYSIWYGs you're
> advocating looks like, not pages generated by your shell script thing which
> is not what the original thread was about.
>
> I stick with my argument that it is better to learn (X)HTML if one is
> trying to write markup than some third-party "WYSIWYG" where what you see
> will only be what you get on one browser (if you're lucky).
>
> Sean


--
kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 20:40:20 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 20:33, kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk> wrote:

> I was replying to Alan Lord, who was suggesting direct editing of xhtml
> markup. Do you not see the replies in threaded mode? I suggested using a
> 'light' markup with script based conversion to html and my point was that
> this reduces the silly errors you get from direct markup.
>

Except you don't get "silly errors", unless you haven't taken the time to
learn it... markup is easy....

<tag>blah blah blah</tag>

Nothing complicated about that - creating "script based conversion" or
something else is no less complicated - it's just the "something else" you
have to learn, rather than the markup.

Which is simple in the first place.

This was mine, and Alan's, argument against so-called "WYSIWYG editors"...
they don't work... and, worse, the person who's used them will find it
impossible to understand *why* they haven't worked, because they haven't
learned the basics of HTML. If they do then learn the basics of HTML, in
order to fathom out the mess the WYSIWYG has made, then they might as well
- from then on - write HTML (or, in this case XHTML) in the first place.

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/255bd2fa/attachment-0001.html>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 20:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Here's a good example, from your page produced in Open Office...

<H1>Probability Summary</H1>

Right, so we're going to go for uppercase tags? That's fine - perfectly
fine in HTML 4.

<p><em>This handout was producted *snip*

...or, perhaps lowercase. Would be nice if it made up its mind.

<IMG SRC="images/probability-vocabi....gif" NAME="Object1"

...back to upper, but complies with the idea that all attribute values
should be in quotes... a positive...

ALIGN=ABSMIDDLE HSPACE=8 WIDTH=19 HEIGHT=38>

...or perhaps not!!

See the issue?

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/0ea755f8/attachment.html>
kpb
2013-01-05 21:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Hello Sean

Yes, the page was done quickly to help some of my students. Noone has compained about the markup!

The only XML errors on other pages on the site are in the bits I didn't use markdown or textile to generate. Which was my original point :-).

WYSIWYG editors: BlueGriffon (mentioned earlier in this thread by Andrew Savin) is based on the Composer. The other one I used ages ago was Amaya, but I can never seem to get that to work on Linux.

Cheers

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 20:47:52 +0000
Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net> wrote:

> Here's a good example, from your page produced in Open Office...
>
> <H1>Probability Summary</H1>
>
> Right, so we're going to go for uppercase tags? That's fine - perfectly
> fine in HTML 4.
>
> <p><em>This handout was producted *snip*
>
> ...or, perhaps lowercase. Would be nice if it made up its mind.
>
> <IMG SRC="images/probability-vocabi....gif" NAME="Object1"
>
> ...back to upper, but complies with the idea that all attribute values
> should be in quotes... a positive...
>
> ALIGN=ABSMIDDLE HSPACE=8 WIDTH=19 HEIGHT=38>
>
> ...or perhaps not!!
>
> See the issue?
>
> Sean


--
kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 21:13:33 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 21:06, kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk> wrote:

> The only XML errors on other pages on the site are in the bits I didn't
> use markdown or textile to generate. Which was my original point :-).
>

XML? I have not seen any XML on your sites at all...

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/c01782e2/attachment.html>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 21:14:01 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 21:13, Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net> wrote:

> XML? I have not seen any XML on your sites at all...
>

And the generated HTML is HTML 4 at best, probably more like HTML 3....
nothing like XHTML.

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/3429898a/attachment.html>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 21:16:04 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 21:14, Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net> wrote:

> And the generated HTML is HTML 4 at best, probably more like HTML 3....
> nothing like XHTML.
>

That is the OpenOffice generated HTML to which I refer.

Still don't quite understand the stuff generated by your shell scripts.

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/39609570/attachment.html>
kpb
2013-01-05 21:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Fortunately most of my readers can understand what I'm writing (which is why I do it) :-)

I will use your feedback to correct the markup on the OpenOffice generated page by hand, just as a matter of principle.

The w3 validator thingy seems prepared to accept that the markup within the other pages (not the OpenOffice one) is consistent with the dtd at the top of each page, except for the bits I *didn't* use markdown for (e.g. tables).

Which brings me, in a rather roundabout way, to the point I made in my reply to Alan Lord. Hand coded (x)html, viewed in a browser, and checked with a validator, is great but takes ages. I find that banging my text into an editor then using the markdown script to convert it to (x)html is much quicker, and results in less mistakes. That is probably just me being a bit of an end user.

None of this is helping Mike Hingley with his original question, but, anyone have any recommendations for the easiest way to do LaTeX -> (x)html?

Cheers

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:16:04 +0000
Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net> wrote:

> On 5 January 2013 21:14, Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net> wrote:
>
> > And the generated HTML is HTML 4 at best, probably more like HTML 3....
> > nothing like XHTML.
> >
>
> That is the OpenOffice generated HTML to which I refer.
>
> Still don't quite understand the stuff generated by your shell scripts.
>
> Sean


--
kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 21:49:47 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 21:45, kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk> wrote:

> Which brings me, in a rather roundabout way, to the point I made in my
> reply to Alan Lord. Hand coded (x)html, viewed in a browser, and checked
> with a validator, is great but takes ages. I find that banging my text into
> an editor then using the markdown script to convert it to (x)html is much
> quicker, and results in less mistakes. That is probably just me being a bit
> of an end user.
>

No, that's not true.

I could write an entire page of XHTML in about 2 minutes.

It only "takes ages" if you don't understand - would you advocate using an
application to solve quadratic equations etc., because "they're too hard"?

They are hundreds and hundreds of times harder than writing markup, which
is a piece of cake.

This person wants to write websites, not purist XHTML... they want
templates, they want it (presumably) to work in different browsers across
different platforms.

I do NOT see how using your shell script solution, or some WYSIWYG which
generates code which only works in some browsers, would help him in any way
at all.

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/d02b7a64/attachment.html>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 21:51:21 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 21:49, Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net> wrote:

> I could write an entire page of XHTML in about 2 minutes.
>

Especially if you use CSS, as you should.

These "tags" that you find so troublesome would only, generally, have one
or two attributes at most.

<div id="header"></div>
<p class="bodytext"></p>

etc.

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/ec5420eb/attachment.html>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 21:58:49 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 21:45, kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk> wrote:

> I will use your feedback to correct the markup on the OpenOffice generated
> page by hand, just as a matter of principle.


There is no necessity to do it... I am merely illustrating how "generated
markup" is ALWAYS inferior to "written markup".


> The w3 validator thingy seems prepared to accept that the markup within
> the other pages (not the OpenOffice one) is consistent with the dtd at the
> top of each page, except for the bits I *didn't* use markdown for (e.g.
> tables).
>

Who gives a damn about the W3C validator?!!?

In this day and age we worry about cross-browser support and other more
urgent considerations. We try to stick to W3C guidelines, but the fact is
that the validator kicks out lots of code that one has to put in to make
things work cross-platform.

jQuery is helping, mind you.

None of this is helping Mike Hingley with his original question, but,
> anyone have any recommendations for the easiest way to do LaTeX -> (x)html?


Mike wrote "I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for a wysiwyg
editor for ubuntu? Ideally I was looking for something like kompozer, but
without the KDE requirement (it does have a KDE requirement right?)"

I never saw any requirement for LaTeX.

I was merely trying to suggest that he was probably going down a
dead-end-road with his search for a WYSIWYG.

It was you that started diverting the conversation away from "WYSIWYG vs.
markup" towards your own shell script solution...

I do not feel that I have deviated at all.. I am still trying to persuade
Mike that learning HTML/XHTML is the way to go, rather than waste time with
a WYSIWYG solution.

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/be76d70b/attachment.html>
kpb
2013-01-05 22:59:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:58:49 +0000
Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net> wrote:

> I never saw any requirement for LaTeX.

No, it is ME that wants to do LaTeX -> HTML, that is why I used the word 'but'.

I'll do some googling and start another thread if I get nowhere.

>
> I do not feel that I have deviated at all.. I am still trying to persuade
> Mike that learning HTML/XHTML is the way to go, rather than waste time with
> a WYSIWYG solution.
>

Excellent.

cheers
--
kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk>
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 23:13:43 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 22:59, kpb <kpb at sohcahtoa.org.uk> wrote:

> I'll do some googling and start another thread if I get nowhere.
>

Yeah, good idea.

"if I get nowhere" is a clear admission that you didn't give a damn about
Mike and his problem, but rather wanted to explore things on your own.

I, meanwhile, will merely continue to give Mike (if he's not too frightened
by the aggression on here to ever post again) to explore learning markup.

And that puts us back to where we were yesterday, I think.

Thanks for your "education", Mr Teacher!

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/4d57b851/attachment.html>
Andres Muniz
2013-01-06 00:39:43 UTC
Permalink
----- Mensaje original -----
>
> None of this is helping Mike Hingley with his original question, but,
> anyone have any recommendations for the easiest way to do LaTeX ->
> (x)html?
>

I know what not to use: LyX and using other wysiwyg like abiword and libreoffice with some addon is a bad idea.

I have seen people generate web pages from LaTeX encoding and I am curious to know how. I think they use it here http://gwyddion.net/documentation might be the other way around.

on wysiwyg and html i have seen that opening an html file generated by ms-word (2010) with libreoffice (3, I recall) Write and saving it as html changes the table formatting at the least.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130106/de679a56/attachment-0001.html>
Phil Dobbin
2013-01-05 20:48:43 UTC
Permalink
On 01/03/2013 11:55 PM, Mike Hingley wrote:

> Hello people...
>
> I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for a wysiwyg editor
> for ubuntu? Ideally I was looking for something like kompozer, but
> without the KDE requirement (it does have a KDE requirement right?)

You could do worse than to try Sublime Text 2 <http://www.sublimetext.com/2>

Whilst not strictly speaking a WYSIWYG editor it's pretty damn powerful
albeit with a learning curve. It's currently in beta & has been for some
while so it's free to use at present but make no mistake it's being very
actively developed.

Available in 32-bit & 64-bit from the website above (BTW, I have no
affiliation with the project & I use Vim for absolutely everything; in
fact, I'm writing this in Vim :-)

Cheers,

Phil...

--
currently (ab)using
CentOS 5.8 & 6.3, Debian Squeeze & Wheezy, Fedora Beefy & Spherical,
Lubuntu 12.10, OS X Snow Leopard & Ubuntu Precise & Quantal
GnuPG Key : http://www.horse-latitudes.co.uk/publickey.asc
Sean Miller
2013-01-05 20:52:53 UTC
Permalink
On 5 January 2013 20:48, Phil Dobbin <bukowskiscat at gmail.com> wrote:

> affiliation with the project & I use Vim for absolutely everything; in
> fact, I'm writing this in Vim :-)
>

Good man.

Sean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130105/4fe0a91c/attachment.html>
Jim Price
2013-01-05 22:37:36 UTC
Permalink
On 03/01/13 23:55, Mike Hingley wrote:
> Hello people...
>
> I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for a wysiwyg editor for
> ubuntu? Ideally I was looking for something like kompozer, but without
> the KDE requirement (it does have a KDE requirement right?)

I think the only thing in common between KompoZer and KDE is they both
start with a K. On the front page of www.kompozer.net you will find this:
"KompoZer is a GTK application".
It will work in KDE if you install its dependencies, but it is not a
native KDE app.

I don't do much in the way of writing web pages, but when I do I find
KompoZer does what I want.

--
JimP
Andres Muniz
2013-01-06 01:25:48 UTC
Permalink
----- Mensaje original -----
> Hello people...
>
> I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for a wysiwyg editor
> for ubuntu?? Ideally I was looking for something like kompozer, but
> without the KDE requirement (it does have a KDE requirement right?)
>
> cheers!
>
> Mike Hingley
>
>
>? ??? ??? ??? ? ? ??? ??? ?
found original post. Sorry for mis using digest.


http://kompozer.net/

says it does not have anything to do with kde but works in kde. It is gtk. Seems to be powered by mozilla. Duckduckgo suggests seamonkey and bluegriffon as alternatives.

Features sound really good on kompozer but I think some knowledge of html is always needed. I would be concerned that latest news is from november2010.

Sorry I cannot be of any help I normally use web pages that do the CSS and hosting for me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130106/f37dc4a7/attachment.html>
Will Tinsdeall
2013-01-06 03:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi Mike,

I'm new to this mailing list but after reading your query I thought I could
lend you my opinion: kompozer is the only real option in my opinion. I've
tried others and they prove (even more) useless. In the end all WYSIWYG
editors are awful - you will just keep having trouble, as well as horrible
and bloated code.

Like others previously, I suggest learning XHTML and using gedit if you are
looking to move forward. Gedit is a brilliant little program, really simple
to use. If you are looking for some XHTML tutorials try w3schools.com. Another
quick tip before I go: try Zen-coding (http://code.google.com/p/zen-coding/) it
is an absolutely brilliant add-on to gedit to help you code! It saves an
awful lot of time.

Hope this helps.

If you need a hand feel free to ping me on Twitter or GitHub
(@ivebeenlinuxed)

Will

On Thursday, January 3, 2013, Mike Hingley wrote:

> Hello people...
>
> I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for a wysiwyg editor for
> ubuntu? Ideally I was looking for something like kompozer, but without the
> KDE requirement (it does have a KDE requirement right?)
>
> cheers!
>
> Mike Hingley
>
>
>

--
Sent via Tablet PC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130106/8756adea/attachment.html>
Mike Hingley
2013-01-06 21:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Thanks everyone -

I've decided to go with Kompozer.

Here's what I'm doing. I'm in the process of writing a Quickly template for writing ebooks. My idea is that you can use quickly to create an ebook project, that when it is 'compiled' produces an epub file. So far it's working really quite well.

So far the template can create an ebook project, add a chapter to it, set up metadata. You also get version control 'for free'.

At the moment if you issue a quickly edit - it launches gedit for each page, but I figured it might be nicer for authors to use something like Kompozer to paste their text. The plan is to suggest kompozer in the package.

As a future development I also hope to create audio books (using festival), mening that an author can release the book for sighted and blind users.

thanks everyone.


Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 03:45:44 +0000
From: will at bcslichfield.com
To: ubuntu-uk at lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Any recommendations for an xhtml editor

Hi Mike,
I'm new to this mailing list but after reading your query I thought I could lend you my opinion: kompozer is the only real option in my opinion. I've tried others and they prove (even more) useless. In the end all WYSIWYG editors are awful - you will just keep having trouble, as well as horrible and bloated code.

Like others previously, I suggest learning XHTML and using gedit if you are looking to move forward. Gedit is a brilliant little program, really simple to use. If you are looking for some XHTML tutorials try w3schools.com. Another quick tip before I go: try Zen-coding (http://code.google.com/p/zen-coding/) it is an absolutely brilliant add-on to gedit to help you code! It saves an awful lot of time.

Hope this helps.
If you need a hand feel free to ping me on Twitter or GitHub (@ivebeenlinuxed)

Will
On Thursday, January 3, 2013, Mike Hingley wrote:




Hello people...

I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for a wysiwyg editor for ubuntu? Ideally I was looking for something like kompozer, but without the KDE requirement (it does have a KDE requirement right?)


cheers!

Mike Hingley





--
Sent via Tablet PC


--
ubuntu-uk at lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130106/c5439b48/attachment.html>
Phill Whiteside
2013-01-06 22:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Hi Mike,

I've followed this thread with great interest as a good friend of mine who
issues e-pubs for a linux group and is also involved with the monthly
magazine for ubuntu has also been bashing his head against a wall. He
discounted Kompozer in the end & decided to bite the bullet and use a
Microsoft one whilst he learned (x)html and CSS. Next time I see him
on-line, I'll ask how he is getting on and if he can give you some advice
from his personal perspective of e-publishing in linux.

Regards,

Phill.

On 6 January 2013 21:07, Mike Hingley <computa_mike at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks everyone -
>
> I've decided to go with Kompozer.
>
> Here's what I'm doing. I'm in the process of writing a Quickly template
> for writing ebooks. My idea is that you can use quickly to create an ebook
> project, that when it is 'compiled' produces an epub file. So far it's
> working really quite well.
>
> So far the template can create an ebook project, add a chapter to it, set
> up metadata. You also get version control 'for free'.
>
> At the moment if you issue a quickly edit - it launches gedit for each
> page, but I figured it might be nicer for authors to use something like
> Kompozer to paste their text. The plan is to suggest kompozer in the
> package.
>
> As a future development I also hope to create audio books (using
> festival), mening that an author can release the book for sighted and blind
> users.
>
> thanks everyone.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 03:45:44 +0000
> From: will at bcslichfield.com
> To: ubuntu-uk at lists.ubuntu.com
>
> Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Any recommendations for an xhtml editor
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I'm new to this mailing list but after reading your query I thought I
> could lend you my opinion: kompozer is the only real option in my opinion.
> I've tried others and they prove (even more) useless. In the end
> all WYSIWYG editors are awful - you will just keep having trouble, as well
> as horrible and bloated code.
>
> Like others previously, I suggest learning XHTML and using gedit if you
> are looking to move forward. Gedit is a brilliant little program, really
> simple to use. If you are looking for some XHTML tutorials try
> w3schools.com. Another quick tip before I go: try Zen-coding (
> http://code.google.com/p/zen-coding/) it is an absolutely brilliant
> add-on to gedit to help you code! It saves an awful lot of time.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> If you need a hand feel free to ping me on Twitter or GitHub
> (@ivebeenlinuxed)
>
> Will
>
> On Thursday, January 3, 2013, Mike Hingley wrote:
>
> Hello people...
>
> I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for a wysiwyg editor for
> ubuntu? Ideally I was looking for something like kompozer, but without the
> KDE requirement (it does have a KDE requirement right?)
>
> cheers!
>
> Mike Hingley
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via Tablet PC
>
> -- ubuntu-uk at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
>
> --
> ubuntu-uk at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
>
> --
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/>https://wiki.ubuntu.com/phillw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-uk/attachments/20130106/3365350b/attachment.html>
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...