|troels nybo nielsen|
Msg#: 156 posted 10:10 am on Nov 2, 2002 (gmt 0)
Ooops! Typing error. It's called Namo WebEditor.
|brotherhood of LAN|
Msg#: 156 posted 12:35 pm on Nov 2, 2002 (gmt 0)
I see you've recommended that editors a few times......I have to admit I've never heard of it.
so what is so good about this editor that you would recommend to us :)
|troels nybo nielsen|
Msg#: 156 posted 2:00 pm on Nov 2, 2002 (gmt 0)
Good question, boL.
But I must admit some dificulties in answering it. I last worked with the Namo several months ago, it was versions 3 and 4 (the present one is 5), and I did not test all functions.
All I personally dare say about it is that it is very easy to get started with for someone accustomed to FP. And it lacks FP's peculiarities!
It has been reviewed with excellent results in danish IT magazines.
If you compare features with other editors it does fairly well:
It is cheap: cheaper than FP and much cheaper than Dreamweaver and GoLive.
[edited by: brotherhood_of_LAN at 3:22 pm (utc) on Nov. 2, 2002]
[edit reason] removed URL's [/edit]
|troels nybo nielsen|
Msg#: 156 posted 3:43 pm on Nov 2, 2002 (gmt 0)
In a sticky mail it has been suggested that I do have some connection with Namo. I don't. But evidently I have broken some rule that I wasn't aware of. I regret starting this thread and I refrain from further participation in it.
Msg#: 156 posted 6:43 pm on Nov 2, 2002 (gmt 0)
The program looks nice on paper, but I don't like the way it uses "layout cells" (I think that's the term used) to create complex pages based on HTML tables.
To me, the best WYSIWYG program for generating complicated page layouts is NetObjects Fusion, simply because Fusion works like a DTP program and saves pages in a proprietary format until they're published (at which time it creates HTML output files in much the same way as Quark XPress or PageMaker generates PostScript output files). This means that, as Web technology progresses, Fusion can create new output files that take advantage of new Web standards and browser features.
Unfortunately, NetObjects encountered financial problems a while back and was bought out by another firm. If I were developing a site that I wanted to keep around a long while, I'd feel nervous about using Fusion. Still, for those who are interested, the site for NetObjects Fusion 7.0 is at:
As for me, I prefer to use plain-vanilla pages that I create and maintain in FrontPage. If FrontPage disappears from the market and I can no longer use features like shared borders and FP includes, all I'll have to do is remove a line or two from my page headers and replace them with SSI include statements, etc. And I'll be able to edit my pages easily without having to use proprietary tools or wrestle with HTML tables.
Msg#: 156 posted 6:51 pm on Nov 2, 2002 (gmt 0)
I'm a satisfied (and broke! :) ) Deamweaver user but we have a number of FP users that would probably like more info. If anyone has more info about this program, I'm confident that some of our regulars would appreciate your input!
We encourage members to limit discussions to one thread, i.e one topic = one thread. We also "walk a fine line" as to liablilty issues and URL drops. Our intent is simply to maintain as high quality a forum as possible.
As a moderator, I occasionally have to edit a post or help someone learn how things are done at WebmasterWorld. Since this is based on judgement and experience, it's often difficult, and occasionally, painful for a moderator.
troels - I'm certain boL is handling things as he sees best and intends no offense or embarrassment to you or anyone else. Each web forum is a bit different and we all had to learn how things are done when we joined this one... I encourage you to share whatever info you can and ask that try you be as patient with us as we try to be with you...
Now it's your turn to yell at me for posting off topic! :) :)
Msg#: 156 posted 7:06 pm on Nov 2, 2002 (gmt 0)
With the greatest respect europeforvisitors, have you ever actually used Netobjects Fusion. It seem to me to be designed to keep users as far away from the code as possible and therefore in a state of complete dependance on the (inadequate) software. Furthermore, it produces the vilest code in webdom and imho Netobjects went broke because Fusion is No Good.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, I just wanted to add mine in case anyone was tempted to follow your link.
Msg#: 156 posted 4:40 pm on Nov 4, 2002 (gmt 0)
Yes, I've used NetObjects Fusion. I reviewed two versions of the program for magazines, and I've used it to build and maintain a site (not the one in my profile, though--that's done with FrontPage).
This doesn't mean I'm recommending it here. Please refer to what I said in the last paragraph of my earlier post:
|As for me, I prefer to use plain-vanilla pages that I create and maintain in FrontPage. If FrontPage disappears from the market and I can no longer use features like shared borders and FP includes, all I'll have to do is remove a line or two from my page headers and replace them with SSI include statements, etc. And I'll be able to edit my pages easily without having to use proprietary tools or wrestle with HTML tables. |
The important phrases in that paragraph are:
|I'll be able to edit my pages easily without having to use proprietary tools or wrestle with HTML tables |
My concern about using a program such as NamoWeb editor is the same as my concern about using a program like NetObjects Fusion: The resulting HTML files are likely to complex and hard to edit in other text editors or WYSIWYG authoring tools. In effect, the Webmaster may be locking himself into one program, and that can be a problem if the program is discontinued, the vendor goes under, or the Webmaster finds a program that he or she likes better.