HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by erkkikosonen@nerdshack.com, Jun 17, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Does someone know a free, downloadable HTML 2.0 editor/composer for
    Windows? It would be nice if it followed the HTML 2.0 standard.
     
    , Jun 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > Does someone know a free, downloadable HTML 2.0 editor/composer for
    > Windows? It would be nice if it followed the HTML 2.0 standard.

    Feel free.
    [http://www.evandervaart.nl/edit/] a list of editors.
    --
    Edwin van der Vaart
    http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
    http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Edwin's persoonlijke web site
    Explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers, onlinemarketingtoday,
    24help.info, issociate.de and software-help1.org to duplicate this post.
     
    Edwin van der Vaart, Jun 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    , Jun 17, 2007
    #3
  4. wrote:
    >> Feel free.
    >> [http://www.evandervaart.nl/edit/] a list of editors.

    >
    > I want HTML 2.0, not everything else.

    Then search for html 2.0 and a serial or a crack for the program.
    --
    Edwin van der Vaart
    http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
    http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Edwin's persoonlijke web site
    Explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers, onlinemarketingtoday,
    24help.info, issociate.de and software-help1.org to duplicate this post.
     
    Edwin van der Vaart, Jun 17, 2007
    #4
  5. wrote:

    [Edwin van der Vaart wrote:]
    >> Feel free.
    >> [http://www.evandervaart.nl/edit/] a list of editors.

    >
    > I want HTML 2.0, not everything else.


    HTML 2.0 is soooo last century. We've been at HTML 4.01 for quite awhile
    now.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 17, 2007
    #5
  6. Guest


    > HTML 2.0 is soooo last century. We've been at HTML 4.01 for quite awhile
    > now.


    And?
     
    , Jun 17, 2007
    #6
  7. wrote:
    [Beauregard wrote:]
    >> HTML 2.0 is soooo last century. We've been at HTML 4.01 for quite
    >> awhile now.

    >
    > And?


    And? The implied question is... "What do you *really* mean?"

    a. Do you want to author pages with ancient rules (and why)?
    b. Are you confusing "HTML 2.0" with the buzzword "Web 2.0?"

    [Please don't snip attributions.]

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 17, 2007
    #7
  8. Guest


    > > I want HTML 2.0, not everything else.

    >
    > Then search for html 2.0 and a serial or a crack for the program.


    I could not have found an HTML 2.0 editor. That is why I asked if
    someone knew of one.

    Cracks are illegal. I would prefer freeware, but users on this
    newsgroup do not even seem to understand my original question.
     
    , Jun 17, 2007
    #8
  9. Guest


    > a. Do you want to author pages with ancient rules (and why)?


    I find these ancient rules better than those of today. Why does
    everything have to be new and fancy?

    > b. Are you confusing "HTML 2.0" with the buzzword "Web 2.0?"


    No, I'm not confusing HTML 2.0 with Web 2.0.
     
    , Jun 17, 2007
    #9
  10. wrote:

    [Beauregard wrote: (you are still stripping attributes)]
    >> a. Do you want to author pages with ancient rules (and why)?

    >
    > I find these ancient rules better than those of today. Why does
    > everything have to be new and fancy?


    So why do you want the dullest of dull pages?

    >> b. Are you confusing "HTML 2.0" with the buzzword "Web 2.0?"

    >
    > No, I'm not confusing HTML 2.0 with Web 2.0.


    Ok then. Read the following link and start writing using your favorite
    text editor.

    http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_toc.html

    I doubt if you will find any current "WYSISYMG" applications that will
    adhere to 2.0 rules.

    Note the source at the above link. Copy it.

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0 Strict Level 2//EN"><HTML>
    <HEAD>
    <!-- This HTML file has been created by texi2html 1.36
    from html-spec.texi on 18 October 1995 -->

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 17, 2007
    #10
  11. wrote:
    > [Beauregard wrote: (*reply attributes restored*)]


    >> a. Do you want to author pages with ancient rules (and why)?

    >
    > I find these ancient rules better than those of today. Why does
    > everything have to be new and fancy?
    >
    >> b. Are you confusing "HTML 2.0" with the buzzword "Web 2.0?"

    >
    > No, I'm not confusing HTML 2.0 with Web 2.0.
    >


    Well I guess you won't be using nasty layers nor abusing tables for layout!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jun 17, 2007
    #11
  12. Guest


    > Well I guess you won't be using nasty layers nor abusing tables for layout!


    Absolutely not. Tables don't even show correctly with many browsers. I
    can also still remember the Netscape version that showed a blank page
    instead of the table on the page.
     
    , Jun 17, 2007
    #12
  13. erkkikosonen wrote:

    > Does someone know a free, downloadable HTML 2.0 editor/composer for
    > Windows? It would be nice if it followed the HTML 2.0 standard.


    HTML 2.0?! Please, just to satisfy my curiosity... why?

    You could try the Composer component in some of the really early versions
    of Netscape -- I don't know when it was first introduced -- possibly in
    Netscape 3.x -- maybe that's too modern.

    Perhaps a very early version of HoTMetaL?

    A better approach might be to try one of these in-browser HTML editing
    components such as widgEditor or TinyMCE. With these, you control the
    toolbar buttons, so you can specifically only add buttons for the elements
    you want (i.e. elements which exist in HTML 2.0). These tend to output
    XHTML, but you can then process that server-side to convert it back into
    HTML 2.0.

    There are probably some SGML editors that allow for editing documents
    conforming to a particular DTD, but these won't allow you WYSIWYG editing.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    [Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
    [OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 114 days, 33 min.]

    You're Not Allowed to Take Pictures of the US Embassy in Rome
    http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/06/16/us-embassy/
     
    Toby A Inkster, Jun 17, 2007
    #13
  14. wrote:
    >> Well I guess you won't be using nasty layers nor abusing tables for layout!

    >
    > Absolutely not. Tables don't even show correctly with many browsers.


    You're joking right? My point is HTML 2 don't have tables, and I made a
    slip, should be frames not layers, layers where never part of any
    version of the spec.


    > I
    > can also still remember the Netscape version that showed a blank page
    > instead of the table on the page.
    >


    Yeah back in Mosaic days maybe.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jun 17, 2007
    #14
  15. Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> I can also still remember the Netscape version that showed a blank
    >> page instead of the table on the page.

    >
    > Yeah back in Mosaic days maybe.


    As I remember, Netscape would not display a table if any parts of
    elements were missing, such as </table>. The page would only be blank if
    everything inside <body> was in that table.

    Good ole HTML 2.0 ... I think I'll switch tomorrow.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 17, 2007
    #15
  16. cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jun 17, 10:21 am, wrote:
    > > a. Do you want to author pages with ancient rules (and why)?

    >
    > I find these ancient rules better than those of today. Why does
    > everything have to be new and fancy?
    >
    > > b. Are you confusing "HTML 2.0" with the buzzword "Web 2.0?"

    >
    > No, I'm not confusing HTML 2.0 with Web 2.0.


    Once you write a HTML 2.0 page by hand or using an editor, be sure to
    validate it at the W3C validator. It will validate a HTML 2.0 page
    still. This will help you prevent using any more modern tags that a
    less than perfect editor might allow. If you select extended interface
    at the validator, it will let you select the correct DOCTYPE for HTML
    2.0 if some nasty old editor does not put one in your code. When you
    have a really good HTML 2.0 page that validates, post the url so we
    can see it. I have never written a HTML 2.0 page and do not even
    recall seeing one. There are still a few HTML 3.2 pages around, but I
    seldom see them these days.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jun 17, 2007
    #16
  17. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>> I can also still remember the Netscape version that showed a blank
    >>> page instead of the table on the page.

    >> Yeah back in Mosaic days maybe.

    >
    > As I remember, Netscape would not display a table if any parts of
    > elements were missing, such as </table>. The page would only be blank if
    > everything inside <body> was in that table.


    Well Netscape 4.x was like that, I have a copy of 4.6 for testing. But
    it *will* show a table if giving valid markup. But I don't know what the
    OP is talking about with browsers having trouble with tables in general...

    >
    > Good ole HTML 2.0 ... I think I'll switch tomorrow.
    >


    Heck, go one better, plain old text!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jun 17, 2007
    #17
  18. Neredbojias Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:21:29 GMT scribed:

    >
    >> a. Do you want to author pages with ancient rules (and why)?

    >
    > I find these ancient rules better than those of today. Why does
    > everything have to be new and fancy?


    Yeah. I liked it better when the Earth was flat, too. 'Didn't roll off
    the bed so much when I came home Friday nights.

    --
    Neredbojias
    He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
     
    Neredbojias, Jun 17, 2007
    #18
  19. dorayme Guest

    In article <5n.co.uk>,
    Toby A Inkster <> wrote:

    > There are probably some SGML editors that allow for editing documents
    > conforming to a particular DTD, but these won't allow you WYSIWYG editing.


    Reasonably modern Mac BBEdit has a doctype option:

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//BBSW//DTD Compact HTML 2.0//EN">

    and a validator function when you are done, perhaps an earlier
    version of BBEdit or Textwrangler + a close attention to BTS's
    reference to the specs would be fun for any Mac person who shares
    the OPs curiosity?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 17, 2007
    #19
  20. dorayme Guest

    In article
    <Xns99529601DF2F0nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161>,
    Neredbojias <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:21:29 GMT scribed:
    >
    > >
    > >> a. Do you want to author pages with ancient rules (and why)?

    > >
    > > I find these ancient rules better than those of today. Why does
    > > everything have to be new and fancy?

    >
    > Yeah. I liked it better when the Earth was flat, too. 'Didn't roll off
    > the bed so much when I came home Friday nights.


    No, you have it wrong. It is more like the desire for simpler
    older cars than something idiotically irrational.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stylus Studio
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    716
    Stylus Studio
    Aug 3, 2004
  2. Hatem KNANI
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    672
    Morphon Technologies
    Aug 4, 2003
  3. Stylus Studio
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    504
    Stylus Studio
    Aug 3, 2004
  4. SyncRO Soft
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    514
    SyncRO Soft
    Jul 21, 2005
  5. SyncRO Soft
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    507
    SyncRO Soft
    Sep 21, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page