[tavilach]

Right when I'm on the verge of ditching Studio MX and going with a SubEthaEdit/CSSEdit, Studio 8 comes along. The issues I have with Studio are:

1) Horrible CSS rendering (supposedly fixed).
2) Speed.
3) Horrible feeling of a Windows program on a Mac (in terms of installation, nonstandard font menu, etc.).

I wonder if #2 and #3 have been worked on at all. If so, I might just sell my copy of MX 2004 and go with 8.

Any opinions?

[OogaBooga]

I'd wait until the Studio 8 free trials are available for download and just try that. Then see if you want to purchase it.

[Mac Write]

As soon as I started moving away from table based design and onto strictly CSS design DW04 crocked. Now I use BBEdit. Having templates and easier CSS could win me over if DW8 does it right. We will have to see.

[Thinine]

TextMate is a better text editor than SubEthaEdit, minus the collaboration features.

[TheAlbinoBowler]

yeah, i only use dreamweaver for old sites that were created in it a long time ago (no way I want to go through that code with a text editor) and for really quick and dirty small html pages. real sites are done all in textmate and cssedit now and it rules. both of those programs are great, clean and mac-like.

now, the improvements to dw8 do seem good, especially the tabbed document window. i'll definitely try it out, but it won't take me away from working in a text edito 90% of the time.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally Posted by TheAlbinoBowler

yeah, i only use dreamweaver for old sites that were created in it a long time ago (no way I want to go through that code with a text editor) and for really quick and dirty small html pages. real sites are done all in textmate and cssedit now and it rules. both of those programs are great, clean and mac-like.

now, the improvements to dw8 do seem good, especially the tabbed document window. i'll definitely try it out, but it won't take me away from working in a text edito 90% of the time.

Just use it (DW) as a text editor, with a useable preview (supposedly fixed in 8) and fabulous Site management, This is how I use the current version at work at the moment anyway, as it's CSS handling is quite broken.

Using a 'pure' text editor for doing anything other than real simple sites is just some sort of self torture. Only done by people who think it makes them some sort of 'Ultimate HTML Guru'.

[:dragonflypro:]

I have to agree with MM12…

The 1337ists of the world can dev their 10 page sites in a text editor all they want. 200+ page sites are a whole other matter and rarely attempted by the cool school college set.

Additionally, any dev who has a volume of copy provided to them in .docs will see the need for the DW app (or it's ilk). There is simply no better way to move text and maintain a reasonable percentage of formatting.

I mean, if you want to go through and re-bold etc, you can, but the $399 is easily offset in time saved. There is not a CSS trick in the world that will reformat your text for you (intelligently applying tags, that is)

That said, I actually develop new sites, designs, CSS, etc in SEE (mostly, but have high hopes for skEdit or HyperText). Once done however, DW does most of the daily work.

CSS is great layout method ( I never have figured out CSSEdit), but once the site is running the light weight apps just can't manage them effectively and all the CSS in the world will help.

T

[TheAlbinoBowler]

well, most of the larger sites i'm working on are database driven and using xhtml/css, so i use just a text editor to create the templates and back end code and cssedit for the css layout. i'm not implying i'm 1337, just that with the way i've been building sites, it's entirely possible to have a 200+ page site managed with just a text editor. for example, i launched this site a few months ago and all the xhtml/css/ruby on rails was done in textmate and cssedit. it's no 10 page college set site, it's a deep site with the database and rails code generating over 700 pages.

basically, i don't like dreamweaver's text editor, textmate has a file drawer, css edit has great real time previews, and the site management is done with a database backend, so it works for me.

[Graymalkin]

Dragonflypro why are you building websites with a significant number of static pages? A CMS will do that work for you and be several times more flexible. Your site's content will be stored in a database which means it can exist independently of the formatting. While right now you might simply want you view HTML versions of submitted papers, a few months down the road you might need to have those papers available as PDFs or Docbook files. Dreamweaver isn't going to do that for you easily.

If you're worried about users submitting Word documents, there's a number of different ways to process Word files into sane HTML to add as an entry to a database. You shouldn't be giving your users/clients an expectation that a Word document is going to look right in anything but Word either. Learn to use the command line HTML Tidy for working with Word's HTML output. A combination of tidy, AppleScript, and Word could have you up and running converting word files to valid XHTML for database entries pretty quickly.

[:dragonflypro:]

To AlbinoBowler: Not saying it can't be done, and kudos to you for having a workable solution. Nice work!

Originally Posted by Graymalkin

Dragonflypro why are you building websites with a significant number of static pages? A CMS will do that work for you and be several times more flexible. Your site's content will be stored in a database which means it can exist independently of the formatting. While right now you might simply want you view HTML versions of submitted papers, a few months down the road you might need to have those papers available as PDFs or Docbook files. Dreamweaver isn't going to do that for you easily.

If you're worried about users submitting Word documents, there's a number of different ways to process Word files into sane HTML to add as an entry to a database.

I never said I was building static pages. I actually use a relatively simple "CMS" written in PHP to accommodate the design I (and the client) want. The articles and pages themselves are just included HTML fragments. In fact, I'd guess you could say I do use a CMS…and DW to manage the articles, FTP them search for content, Find/Replace etc

As for a full on CMS. I find the designs templates of most fairly inflexible. I have yet to find one that will let me Find/Replace values across the site (for instance change Bob Jones to Robert Jones), etc. And still, they require you to re-format articles or insert HTML marked-up documents in the Admin section when you create the entry.

I've tried several methods of converting .docs to HTML. Simply pasting from Word to DW provides the simplest, cleanest in my experience. I am entirely open to new solutions, but not for the sake of just not having DW. It only takes me 5-10 minutes to paste a 20 page heavily marked page and scan it for consistency.

Still, show me a script or CMS that can parse RTF and I am there.

You shouldn't be giving your users/clients an expectation that a Word document is going to look right in anything but Word either. Learn to use the command line HTML Tidy for working with Word's HTML output. A combination of tidy, AppleScript, and Word could have you up and running converting word files to valid XHTML for database entries pretty quickly.

As for what expectations I should be giving my client, well, that is a matter of professional decision. No, the web is not print. But copy should be bolded, italicized and underlined as requested. Since I can paste that with no effort from DW and get near instant results, that is what I use.

And I can PDF from those pages fine, thanks.

I am not saying DW is required… or even the ideal solution. But most of the technically inclined dismiss it because of some of it's lower end features meant for broad appeal. I choose to use it as I need it. And for 18 months of income, $399 upgrade is of the least of my expenses.

T

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

I have to agree with MM12…

The 1337ists of the world can dev their 10 page sites in a text editor all they want. 200+ page sites are a whole other matter and rarely attempted by the cool school college set.

That's because by the time we get to that volume of pages, we switch to a database solution where we have to write only 10 HTML files and the content is substituted in automatically

Amorya

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by Amorya

That's because by the time we get to that volume of pages, we switch to a database solution where we have to write only 10 HTML files and the content is substituted in automatically

Amorya

And yet, you still have to mark-up your articles if you want any formatting of them, whether they go into a DB or not.

That is unless Karnac Semantic Markup v1.0 is out of beta stage.

Again, I am not saying DW is the ultimate management tool. It serves purpose, however.

T

[osxisfun]

the formatting can be php logic :

if $type == 7 then myclass

etc..

[Gee4orce]

TextMate is rapidly becoming one of the best Mac text editors - it's not there yet, for serious programming work, but it's perfect for HTML, and it's improving all the time.

SEE seems to have stagnated. At one time it was really innovative - shame it hasn't kept on at the same pace. Stiil, it's a solid application, and the collaborative features are unique.

I love CSSEdit, but it's due an update too IMO. It helps greatly with CSS attributes, but it you're on your own as far as CSS selectors go, and selectors are half the magic (and mystery) of CSS...

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

I have to agree with MM12…

The 1337ists of the world can dev their 10 page sites in a text editor all they want. 200+ page sites are a whole other matter and rarely attempted by the cool school college set.

T

Any site with more than 10 pages these days is database driven, so your argument doesn't hold water.

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by TheAlbinoBowler

for example, i launched this site a few months ago and all the xhtml/css/ruby on rails was done in textmate and cssedit. it's no 10 page college set site, it's a deep site with the database and rails code generating over 700 pages.
.

Nice work . I like the Effect.appear thing on the booking form.

How do you find Ruby on Rails ? It's something that's on my 'must have a look at' list, along with Seagull.

[TheAlbinoBowler]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Nice work . I like the Effect.appear thing on the booking form.

How do you find Ruby on Rails ? It's something that's on my 'must have a look at' list, along with Seagull.

thanks! i can't recommend ruby on rails highly enough. the best description i've heard for it is from jeffrey veen - "it's the framework i would have made myself." that pretty much sums it up for me. it's the most practical and efficient environment i've ever worked with, and you can tell it was created by people who actually build sites for a living. it really enables you to not have to worry about the fundamental aspects of database driven sites and concentrate more on usability and features since it makes the fundamentals so easy. for instance, if i built that site in php like i had originally planned, all the niceties such as the Effect.Appear elements and Ajax driven in-line editing would not have even been considered since it would have taken me so much longer to just get the basics up and running. rails makes building sites fun and makes me excited for the possibilities all over again, which is probably the highest recommendation i can give.

[TheAlbinoBowler]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

And yet, you still have to mark-up your articles if you want any formatting of them, whether they go into a DB or not.

one method that i've found helps a lot with this in the database driven solutions is using a simplified markup syntax like textile or markdown. it's easy for the client to semantically markup their own input, and it's easy to go through already written articles and quickly (re)format them with either one. then the css does the rest.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by TheAlbinoBowler

one method that i've found helps a lot with this in the database driven solutions is using a simplified markup syntax like textile or markdown. it's easy for the client to semantically markup their own input, and it's easy to go through already written articles and quickly (re)format them with either one. then the css does the rest.

Either of those services would be great if a client was actually willing to re-enter / format their own work. They aren't.

You will find 98% of copy you get from a client is in Word. Additionaly, it is simply that copywriters and editors work in Word. They do, it's just a fact.

The notion that after multiple revisions in Word that someone is going to stop and re-enter copy into a text box just to apply bold and italic formatting is just not realistic.

Look, my only point is, pasting into DW makes it super simple.

I'm not exporting Word HTML and cleaning it, but the text copies from Word and pastes to DW with <p> <strong>, <em> and <u> and other basic tags as required.

Then any CSS I have written handles the rest.

It does not matter where you go, what you do, what method you use, how it's stored etc. If you want styled text, you need to mark it up.

If you have an alternate method, I'd love to hear it.

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Any site with more than 10 pages these days is database driven, so your argument doesn't hold water.

You think so, eh? OK.

Ideally, yes.

Practically, not even close.

T

[tavilach]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Any site with more than 10 pages these days is database driven, so your argument doesn't hold water.

Huh? I'm working on a company website with about 50 pages, and am doing it purely in CSS and XHTML. Whenever someone from the company wants to add a page, all they'll have to do is type in a few <h1> and <div> tags, and the styling is done automatically. How would using a database make this any easier? What would I use it for? I'm confused.