HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

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.

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

erkkikosonen@nerdshack.com 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.

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

> Feel free.
> [http://www.evandervaart.nl/edit/] a list of editors.

I want HTML 2.0, not everything else.

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

erkkikosonen@nerdshack.com 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.

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

erkkikosonen@nerdshack.com 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

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

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

And?

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

erkkikosonen@nerdshack.com 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

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

> > 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.

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

> 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.

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

erkkikosonen@nerdshack.com 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.





--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

erkkikosonen@nerdshack.com 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

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

> 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.

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

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/

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

erkkikosonen@nerdshack.com 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

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> erkkikosonen@nerdshack.com 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 . The page would only be blank if
everything inside was in that table.

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

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

On Jun 17, 10:21 am, erkkikoso...@nerdshack.com 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.

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
>> erkkikosonen@nerdshack.com 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 . The page would only be blank if
> everything inside 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

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

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.

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

In article ,
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:



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

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

In article
,
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

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

erkkikosonen@nerdshack.com 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.

Notepad++

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

On 17 Jun, 14:22, erkkikoso...@nerdshack.com 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.

Emacs surely?

If you have any _possible_ rational reason for using HTML 2.0, it's
surely related to some historical academic interest. If so, a text
editor and a DTD-based validator would seem most appropriate.

There is _no_ good reason to author in HTML 2.0 other than the
historical curiosity though. Counter-examples would be very
interesting.

Re: HTML 2.0 editor for Windows?

erkkikosonen wrote:

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

Try HTML 4.0 Strict. It was published (if I recall correctly) in 1997 so
it should satisfy your desire for something ancient.

If you avoid using the following elements: