[Pop`]

Robert wrote:
To be honest, I personally never used Nvu. I suggested it only
because it is free, Mac compatible, and some people seem to be quite
happy with it. As far as I am concerned, I would never use a WYSIWYG
application to create a Web page. All the WYSIWYG applications that I
tried in the past create Web pages with tons of unnecessary extra
code. I am probably slightly obsessional about this, but I like my
code to be neat and tidy. I only use a pure text editor with a
clipboard utility to paste ready-made HTML tags and code snippets.
You only have to know or learn which code to use to achieve the
desired effect...

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 11:47:56 -0400, Pop` wrote:
...

CAUTION: NVU has been stranded for almost two years now. It IS
good for basic html, but ... beware the more complex functions.
Before you use it, go to their forum and read up on it. There's
also a list of bugs someplace on the site - well worth your time.
It's no Dreamweaver or Fusion, but it is usable for the most part.
Do not use its ftp abilities for uploading; it's buggy; use your own
ftp program. And don't be too surprised that it rewrites and
reformats the code you write and numbers lines improperly. If it's
design is "alive" again, great; otherwise I'd stay away from NVU
unless you're still learning HTML. YOu'll also want tidy.exe to go
with it.

HTH
Pop`

All good points. And the other thing to keep in mind is that no wsywyg can
actually show you the differences in the ways different browsers will
display pages. What looks fine in one might look pretty messed up in
another and vice-versa. It's best to have at least IE and NS on board for
testing purposes.

Regards,

Pop`