Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

W3's Amaya Reaches Version 8.0

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the compliance dept.

Programming 43

Xusto D. H. Sals writes "The W3C's web browser-cum-editor Amaya has finally reached version 8.0. Changes are detailed here. Out of interest, how many people use this as a HTML editor, if so why, or why not?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5793546)

Not two days in a row.
I can't be this lucky.
I mean, seriously. This kind of stuff never happens to me.
Guess I better hit submit or...

Why would you want too use this? (1)

override11 (516715) | more than 11 years ago | (#5793558)

My first thought on seeing this was: Netscape. Not mozilla, I'm talking old school netscape look. I toyed with it for about 5 minutes, and I think I will stick with Studio MX thank you! :)

Re:Why would you want too use this? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5812638)

fuck you! FUCK YOU!

Why would anyone use this? (1)

jonm (13708) | more than 11 years ago | (#5793607)

I write in pure HTML - why would anyone do different?

Re:Why would anyone use this? (0, Flamebait)

Stinson (564450) | more than 11 years ago | (#5793704)

because they're lazy...i find my only use for wysiwyg's are to arrange complex table layouts that are just too mindboggling for me to sit working on for a while.

Re:Why would anyone use this? (1)

jonm (13708) | more than 11 years ago | (#5793860)

I do understand that - but I do still code CSS and HTML in vim. It's what I learnt, but each to their own.

Re:Why would anyone use this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5801984)

WUSS! I code my HTML/CSS/Java ad infinitum in pico ONLY! And I edit graphics in hex! (ok, that last wasn't true, but...)

Re:Why would anyone use this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5793892)

maybe because x(html|ml) are better than html?

Re:Why would anyone use this? (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 11 years ago | (#5795738)

Because every release of HTML (or now XHTML, whatever) that comes out makes things more and more annoying to code by hand.

I still do so, but I don't have some ugly chopped-up-graphics page that's buzzword complient. This, however, is a necessity for any corporation's home page.

Re:Why would anyone use this? (2, Interesting)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 11 years ago | (#5799002)

I write in pure HTML - why would anyone do different?

People seem to think it's easier to do HTML with a graphical toy, even when it, of course, isn't in retrospect - you get a pretty site with, shall we say, challenging HTML code that people will need to modify by hand...

Amaya tends to generate pretty cool and even standards-compliant code, though it's still possible to do strange things with it.

Suppose you're (like me) teaching non-techs how to do web pages with Amaya. You can start telling web newbies about page structure, different meanings of different tags, but when they find out the hard font changing options, all hell breaks loose and they never learn how to do proper pages. =( And on top of all this, they insist on using graphical tools because raw HTML is "hard".

If people call HTML hard, well, I'm these days tempted to tell them back, "Ah, but in that case, just write the content and let someone else to do the HTML page. HTML requires some patience and willing to understand. If you don't have either, it obviously isn't your forte." The problem is, some people might be angered by that reply...

Anyway, personally, yeah, I think Amaya is nice, but I still like xemacs, optionally with wml+tidy =)

Re:Why would anyone use this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5802492)



If people call HTML hard, well, I'm these days tempted to tell them back, "Ah, but in that case, just write the content and let someone else to do the HTML page. HTML requires some patience and willing to understand. If you don't have either, it obviously isn't your forte."


Gimme your name and address. I'll be sending you my content, and you can do the html for free, just as I would have done had I spent my time learning html, and vi(m), right? That is a free labor offer of doing my html for me, isn't it? Because I don't pay myself when I produce web pages for myself. That is allowed, isn't it? Maybe not in your world.

So in your world, because others are not programmers, web designers, vi(m) fanatics, or just don't have the time or want to learn html for their one or handful of web sites, they aren't allowed into your territory?

Let me guess, when you see a post from a newbie for help for something simple, (such as dealing with dependency problems when installing Amaya), you bowl everybody else over in your zeal to run for the keyboard to be the first poster to tell the newbie to rtfm, right? Don't bother answering, I already know the answer from your post.

Last web page I made using a wysiwyg app, the page rendered fine in multiple versions of ie, mozilla, and konqueror. Yet when one of the "gurus" (incidently someone who runs his mail server according to his, and the only correct, version of the rfcs, and who bounces so much mail headed for himself and his clients that he has to manually add the individual senders to an allowed list) decided to "mirror" my web page, he decided that whatever wysiwyg I used was so bad that he had to rewrite the whole page himself. In the meantime, my web page rendered correctly in the half dozen browsers I checked, including a few open source browsers, and his page may have had perfect html, yet it looked like one big blob. It took me a few minutes to set up the page design, and about ten minutes of data entry. He couldn't keep a decent design, turning it into a big blob, with the same few minutes? Or a few minutes more? The data was simply copy/paste. You can do that with vi(m), right?

Stick to your vi(m). I'll stick to my wysiwyg tools.

btw, I checked the code while using the wysiwyg app. Just as you can with most of the wysiwyg apps out there. And you can hand edit the code (as I do) while using the app. And you can learn html (as I do) while using the app. And you can change settings in some of the wysiwyg apps so that it doesn't mangle code, or change code when saving, etc. Nested tables problems? Maybe there's more of a problem with the open source browsers.

One more thing. Check the w3c web site for w3c compliance. Or slashdot (Oh, I forgot, the Slashdot editors made checking w3c compliance a little difficult, right?). Or the vast majority of other sites. Including the open source sites of most major corporations dealing with open source.

Amaya == Camelot (1)

4of12 (97621) | more than 11 years ago | (#5793619)


Imagine what could have been the Web if Amaya, with built in MathML, SVG, and authoring (more P2P like and less client-server like) instead of what we have now.

I think the motivating ideas behind Amaya are wonderful and would like to see them really take off.

Re:Amaya == Camelot (1)

an_mo (175299) | more than 11 years ago | (#5793770)

Those motivating ideas were there since the beginning of the web (read Berners-Lee autobiography). However, the Mosaic team thought differently and didn't really put too much priority on including an authoring tool.

Re:Amaya == Camelot (1)

zmotula (663798) | more than 11 years ago | (#5793819)

What we have now?

You've got MathML built in Mozilla, SVG (ok, sort of :) built in Mozilla, what more do You want? Amaya has got it easy because it doesn't aim to be The browser and (at least from my point of view) is a kind of a lab rat for w3 specs.

A good testbed (2, Informative)

ptaff (165113) | more than 11 years ago | (#5793918)

OTOH, They're pretty late in CSS implementation. The "float" property is relatively old, but has just been added in this release. Seems background-images didn't work either (CSS1).

If you must revert to spacer GIF tricks to build a webpage out of Amaya, there's no point in using a "we lack 1998's standards" browser. You prevent the web from evolving.

Wouldn't the Amaya developers use their time more wisely in collaborating with Mozilla/KHTML? It's nice to show off SVG and MathML, but if there's no audience, that precious development is lost.

Re:A good testbed (2, Insightful)

4of12 (97621) | more than 11 years ago | (#5794372)


It's nice to show off SVG and MathML,

A lot of people in the scientific community would welcome a means for easily publishing their work in a high quality format on the web. HTML is a nice standard when content and presentation can or should be separated. PDF permits high quality output, but the format is opaque to manual use unlike HTML.

That means scalable vector graphics and high quality mathematics typesetting, things which up until now have been available only through graphical drawing applications supporting PostScript or PDF, or document preparation systems like TeX.

If Amaya permitted one to author a graphical SVG sketch and to annotate specific locations with mathematical equations in MathML that would be rendered with TeX quality, that would be a real plus.

Re:A good testbed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5796396)

you can use the MS Word equation editor.

Simple answer ... (4, Interesting)

belbo (11799) | more than 11 years ago | (#5793750)

Out of interest, how many people use this as a HTML editor, if so why, or why not?

Quoth the changelog:

Access keys for activating menu entries (Alt + a letter) are now available on Windows versions.[...]
Amaya now allows to create/change a link without using the mouse. [...]
Support of attribute align="left" and align="right"

Amaya is _so_ far behind the curve, it isn't even funny anymore.
Give me htp [sourceforge.net] and a good text editor and I got you a complete website sooner than you figure out how to handle Amaya's incredibly cumbersome interface.

With the advent of structured markup from the XML family, graphical HTML editors seem to become superfluous - you put a logical structure into the text and have it presentated by another file, the style sheet. There's no reason why that should require any form of WYSIWYG editing, especially since all the WYSIWYG editors I know suck at handling style sheets, let alone creating them properly. They are handy when prototyping, but after that, a script can do the same job in one tenth of a time.

Re:Simple answer ... (2, Insightful)

JimDabell (42870) | more than 11 years ago | (#5794380)

Amaya is _so_ far behind the curve, it isn't even funny anymore.

It may have only just implemented things like floats, but it's had XHTML, SVG, annotations and MathML for years.

It's a testbed project - it's not behind the curve, it just has different priorities.

Re:Simple answer ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5796643)

Note that a XHTML browser is significantly easier to implement than a Nutscrape/Internet Exploder HTML browser. You just refuse to render 99% of the pages on the Internet.

editor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5793853)

browser-cum-editor Amaya

There is a job called cum editor? Ans she (maybe he) is named Amaya?

Re:editor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5794967)

yeah baby, edit my cum... beotch!

Hey, I've tried (1)

RelentlessWeevilHowl (451367) | more than 11 years ago | (#5793862)

When I'm just writing text, I code in XHTML or XML. That's what they're designed to do, and they work well for it.

Tables are annoying, however, and structured vector graphics (objects with ports on their sides) are impossible. I've looked into Amaya for these features, and support for them is still too primitive.

Do any of the various free tools have a combination that can match Word-plus-simple-embedded-Visio? I've found that's all I need for 90% of my technical documentation.

structured editing (1)

Shewmaker (28126) | more than 11 years ago | (#5794322)

I use Amaya every once in a while, but I generally use vim. One nice feature Amaya has is its structure view. I don't use wysiwyg editors that much, so I don't know if that is a common feature.

Why not? (1)

Tom7 (102298) | more than 11 years ago | (#5794581)


I don't use Amaya because their own web page is ugly as hell. Standards compliance is great and all, but if you can't even create the design you want to create, what's the point?

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5794793)

No offense, but that is the stupidest thing I've heard today. That design was probably what they were going for. But in any case, WYSIWYG is obsolete.

Re:Why not? (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 11 years ago | (#5795758)

Tom, I don't want to be overly critical, and I realize that aesthetics are pretty subjective, but I find their webpage [w3.org] much more intuitively navigable than your snoot [snoot.org] site.

Re:Why not? (1)

Tom7 (102298) | more than 11 years ago | (#5800473)

Yeah, well, my point is that their editor seems designed to only make that style of page. (Long vertical scroll, [H1] [H2] stuff, and the CVS tags and standards compliance buttons at the bottom, etc.) I don't claim that their page isn't navigable in a utilitarian sort of way, but it's certainly not how I'd want my web page to look. It's not really fair to compare the two based on navigability, since they have totally different purposes--snoot.org is not there for informational purposes, it's supposed to be fun, confusing, and exploratory. If I was making a page for some web design software, I'd make it a lot more clear, but then again, I'd also make it actually look good.

Re:Why not? (1)

CargoCultCoder (228910) | more than 11 years ago | (#5805183)

Yeah, well, my point is that their editor seems designed to only make that style of page. (Long vertical scroll, [H1] [H2] stuff, and the CVS tags and standards compliance buttons at the bottom, etc.)

That's a fair criticism, but to be honest I'd love to have an editor/browser that did even that much well. I prefer to write documentation in HTML and don't need much more than basic markup. I can link in a stylesheet for a little pop, but that's as fancy as it needs to be. However, in tinkering with Amaya on and off, it just feels clunky and it's definitely not the kind of tool you could hand to geeks and non-geeks alike, and expect them to collaborate happily through it. (E.g., non-geeks draw up a functional spec, geeks make their comments and corrects, non-geeks revise spec, etc., all in a single HTML document.)

Personally, I find Wiki to be a close-enough approximation to the kind of editor/browser functionality Amaya strives for. It's not quite the same, but it's simple enough that all kinds of folks can work on a document without (say) one person trashing another's simple, clean markup by editing it in Word.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5796794)

Dude, standards compliance might make your source easily readable, instead of that horrible mess of tables you have at present.

Badly designed, don't waste your time. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 11 years ago | (#5795140)


I just took a look at version 8 of Amaya. It puts tons of junk in the HMTL, making it very difficult to edit by hand.

My experience is that it is badly designed, and not worth the time to load.

Re:Badly designed, don't waste your time. (1)

Baloo Ursidae (29355) | more than 11 years ago | (#5796658)

Really? I've used Amaya for years now, and I know HTML. Amaya just does it faster. You really have to try to make Amaya produce garbage code (get crazy with nested tables). About 95% of the time, Amaya only uses what is required by W3C standards.

Care to give examples?

If you have tips for using Amaya, please comment. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 11 years ago | (#5798284)


I just opened this web page: Complicated methods corrupt Oregon government [futurepower.net] and immediately saved it. The page has nested tables. I use them because they work with more browsers than CSS.

Any thoughts you might have about using Amaya would be appreciated. My experience is that HTML-Kit and Mozilla Composer are better free tools. Mozilla is WYSIWYG, but it outputs HTML that is not easy to edit.

Even Dreamweaver MX puts junk in HTML pages, and outputs pages in a poor-quality format for hand editing. Apparently the people who program these tools don't actually use them.

Re:If you have tips for using Amaya, please commen (1)

Baloo Ursidae (29355) | more than 11 years ago | (#5805584)

The biggie is if you need to backspace over changes in attribute, you might want to doublecheck the raw code to make sure it's gone and not just an empty pair. This really actually applies to all HTML editors, they really only exist to speed things up rather than replace actual knowledge.

Other than that, Amaya just needs some getting used to. Standards exist because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Avoid Mozilla and Dreamweaver, Amaya is the only WYSIWYG HTML editor that follows the W3C standards. This means that your page will be viewable as you created it in all but the most lossy browsers.

why not.. (1)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 11 years ago | (#5795405)

.. because it does not do https request or at least 7 did not.. which means no SSL and to login to my yahoo it seems they do a http to https to http redirect thing that does not work in amaya. There is no javescript support. While some people like this javascript is really useful and used on many pages. I can use lynx on my slow hardware and it can view my yahoo. I can save my yahoo and then view it in links-gui and it is much better (links gui supports javascript but sketchy https). On my faster hardware I use bloatzilla (mozilla) it has all the features I want in a browser and on my hardware doesn't do that bad. In fact I find it better than IE, cause mozilla has popup blocking && control so only sites I want to allow popups can. Cookie control is rocking. Form manager is useful, IMHO. I do most of my editing in a plain text editor like Jedir, Gel or nedit, or even vi.

Why I use it at home... (0)

Chexsum (583832) | more than 11 years ago | (#5796989)

I like Amaya because its fast and easy for CSS plus SVG although I dont use it often. Mozilla Composer is a much nicer page editor but its a bit slow and I dont compile it *POS computer*. :P

Hard to beat Dreamweaver MX in productivity... (1)

Cpt_Corelli (307594) | more than 11 years ago | (#5797192)


Serious interface developers that know how to set up and use library items in dreamweaver can develop large scale web sites and applications very efficiently. I have yet to come across another tool that enables the same level of productivity when it comes to creating web pages.

Pairing dreaweaver with a good UI guidelines document also enables consistency across a team when developing new pages.

PS. In retrospect this looks like I am employed by Macromedia to deliver shameless plugs.. This is not the case.

Re:Hard to beat Dreamweaver MX in productivity... (1)

CwazyWabbit (610151) | more than 11 years ago | (#5797434)

Out of interest, how is Dreamweaver's standard compliance these days? I had heard before that it was not good (as in did not validate against the w3c thingy) and was wondering if it was better now? Note: I may have heard lies, and did not check for myself. But I don't remember disagreements where I read it.

Re:Hard to beat Dreamweaver MX in productivity... (1)

|_uke (158930) | more than 11 years ago | (#5801270)

I used Dreamweaver DX quite a bit lately (and vs 4... but I always hated 4s interface)... I honestly havent noticed anything non complient about the code it generates.

Then again my pages tend to be somewhat simple.... tables for layout and CSS for formatting. (Yes I know... DX supports CSS layers and such... but I could never get them to work right LOL... I think this has more to do with my inexperiance with the tool its complience however =))

Amaya does have one strength... (1)

alxdark (586592) | more than 11 years ago | (#5800653)

Among free WYSIWYG editors, Amaya is remarkable in that it will produce squeaky-clean, nicely-formatted XHTML 1.0/1.1. If for some reason you need this, Amaya is your tool (Mozilla's Composer is a nicer application but the HTML is junk, and other tools are not cross-platform). The real mystery with Amaya is why it does not follow any known user interface standards. This makes it quite difficult to use. Even a simple table in Amaya is an exercise in confusion.

Use it? Want to, can't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5802069)



Dependency failures on install, not a linux sys admin or guru.

Keep trying but always half way there (1)

RParr (552111) | more than 11 years ago | (#5803966)

I've downloaded and tried using most new Amaya versions since 2.x. I *really* like the idea of browse/edit. But Amaya has consistently been schizophrenic; it is ahead of the curve on several aspects (standards like CSS, XHTML, SVG) and way, way behind the curve/competition on many other aspects. For a given page here and there it works very nicely but I have never been able to use it to browse to many modern sites that contain JavaScript, Java, etc. I think Amaya is a wonderful idea but ... R.Parr Temporal Arts

OpenGL version ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5834880)

Yet another experiment in Amaya !!

More researchers than developpements team... and Team seems to be a great word : seems to be only one or two coders behind this ?

Well It does display Animated SVG !!!
Event with XHTML in it !??!!??

Why does the smallest and weirdest dev team achieve to display SVG, MathML and XHTML all in one shot ???

Is it so difficult for the other browser's team ?

Something is bad in the standard foolowing... marcomedia flash is just so... SVG IS the solution but nobody seems to get at it...

Another thing is : OpenGL apps is just so smooth here ? when does REAL apps get on using it ?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?