add html support to VDE

[iw2evk roberto]

Hi all,

i suggest in next release of VDE add a suuport for read/write on HTML.
This for interface with some converter text programs supporting html type.

P.s it's possible also add the possibility to choice the height of caracter and type of caracter for documets?

many thanks

Roberto iw2evk

Milan

[Eric Meyer]

Hi Roberto,

HTML support is a good suggestion.  Unfortunately it would require a fair amount of new code due to the complexity of HTML, and I'm just not contemplating further development of VDE at this point.

Font size, style, etc can be specified in Wordstar style using the ^P feature.  They will translate into other document formats within VDE's limitations.  For printing directly from VDE, select the appropriate printer driver or customize the appropriate PCL codes yourself using VINST.

     Best wishes --  Eric Meyer.

[Moy Wong]

Greetings,

Didn't "standard" HTML, say, after version 3, basically get ruined by
the browser wars?

-m

]Hi Roberto,

]>
]
]--
]---Get VDE and related files at http://sites.google.com/site/vdeeditor/
]---
]You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VDE_Editor" group.
]To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vde_editor+...@googlegroups.com.
]For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[dmccunney]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Moy Wong <m...@panix.com> wrote:

> Didn't "standard" HTML, say, after version 3, basically get ruined by
> the browser wars?

Define "ruined".

HTML4 is solid and widely used. HTML5 is a work in progress, with
vendors implementing the parts that seem likely to stay as currently
specified while they wait for the dust to settle on a completed spec.

The big win most folks see is the <video> keyword, that will make it
possible to embed video content without needing Adobe Flash. You
will still need a codec for the video, but that will be delivered as a
component of the browser, and will not be a third-party plugin.
Current browser development seems to make the assumption "Plugins are
bad. The user should be able to do all normal browsing tasks without
needing them."

Recent versions of Firefox ship with a plugin_helper executable, that
creates a sandbox the plugin can run is, so a crashing plugin doesn't
take the browser down with it. (Adobe Flash seems to have been the
main reason it was implemented, as it has been a top crasher in
Firefox in Firefox crash reports for as long as Firefox has been
sending them.)

> -m
______
Dennis
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519

[Moy Wong]

Hi Dennis,

I meant "ruined" hyperbolically, in that the cost of progress sometimes
entails some risk of annoying compatibility issues for what ideally
would be a "universal" web language. HTML does successfully retain its
core functionality despite the differing language "extensions" promoted
by the Big Browsers. HTML has grown very robust, as you illustrated.

It's a moot point, though, as I see VDE as fundamentally a text editor
and as such, using a text editor to edit today's typical HTML code seems
a bit busy-making. Eric Meyer has really polished up VDE to become a
viable, mature text editor with a dedicated following, so I think we
should leave VDE within its intended scope.

-moy

ps IIRC, HTML is ignorant of EOLs, so wouldn't VDE have difficulty with
very long "paragraphs?"

]

[dmccunney]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Moy Wong <m...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> I meant "ruined" hyperbolically, in that the cost of progress sometimes
> entails some risk of annoying compatibility issues for what ideally
> would be a "universal" web language. HTML does successfully retain its
> core functionality despite the differing language "extensions" promoted
> by the Big Browsers. HTML has grown very robust, as you illustrated.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Standards. As I recall, there was
various fun back then because the HTML 3 spec wasn't carved in
granite, and everyone had a different idea of how it should be
implemented.

These days, the differences tend to be in CSS support, with IE
trailing the pack.

> It's a moot point, though, as I see VDE as fundamentally a text editor
> and as such, using a text editor to edit today's typical HTML code seems
> a bit busy-making. Eric Meyer has really polished up VDE to become a
> viable, mature text editor with a dedicated following, so I think we
> should leave VDE within its intended scope.

HTML code *is* ASCII text. You *could* edit HTML with it now. What
you could not do is get a WYSIWYG preview of what the code would look
like. But there are a plethora of editors designed to edit HTML. I
don't see a reason for VDE to join the crowd.

> -moy
>
> ps IIRC, HTML is ignorant of EOLs, so wouldn't VDE have difficulty with
> very long "paragraphs?"

Good question. One limit in any editor is the maximum line length it handles.

Back in the day, I used a freeware editor called SLED from Sam
Willmot. I once tested it to see how long a line it could handle. I
finally got it to choke on a line 116K long...
______
Dennis
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519

[Adolfo Di Mare]

I write in HTML since v0.0; I did most of my editing in HTML using VDE as my "writing instrument". At that time, my screen was 80 chars wide with 43 lines. Now I have a 27" monitor were I keep zillions of windows open, and I found an editor that can do "rectangular copies" (I no longer use VDE because other tools fit me better).

However, I regard VDE as a Piece of Art. You would never take a Picasso to change it: you let it be as it is! In the worst case, you retouch it to return it to its prime state. Hence, I will keep VDE v193a in my computer even after I can no longer type.

           Adolfo
                      ///

[Moy Wong]

[...]

]Welcome to the Wonderful World of Standards. As I recall, there was

]various fun back then because the HTML 3 spec wasn't carved in
]granite, and everyone had a different idea of how it should be
]implemented.

"Standards" indeed! There was once a large office that was ordered to
"standardize" their software suite on one particular office software
suite. That very quickly made them incompatible with documents,
spreadsheets, etc. in nearly every email attachment from the outside
world and wreaking havoc with their IT department.

]> It's a moot point, though, as I see VDE as fundamentally a text editor

]> and as such, using a text editor to edit today's typical HTML code seems
]> a bit busy-making. Eric Meyer has really polished up VDE to become a
]> viable, mature text editor with a dedicated following, so I think we
]> should leave VDE within its intended scope.
]

]HTML code *is* ASCII text. You *could* edit HTML with it now. What
]you could not do is get a WYSIWYG preview of what the code would look
]like. But there are a plethora of editors designed to edit HTML. I
]don't see a reason for VDE to join the crowd.

Yes, HTML is ASCII. I once toyed with creating VDE macros to help
deploy commonly used <tags>around blocked text</tags>. I agree, use the
best tool for the job--and I prefer using VDE and its Wordstar-style
commands for plain *writing*.

]> ps IIRC, HTML is ignorant of EOLs, so wouldn't VDE have difficulty with

[Moy Wong]

Another Satified Customer!

]I write in HTML since v0.0; I did most of my editing in HTML using VDE as

]my "writing instrument". At that time, my screen was 80 chars wide with 43
]lines. Now I have a 27" monitor were I keep zillions of windows open, and I
]found an editor that can do "rectangular copies" (I no longer use VDE
]because other tools fit me better).
]

]However, I regard VDE as a *Piece of Art*. You would never take a Picasso

[Eric Meyer]

This is what has made sharing VDE so rewarding.

Thanks, everyone. -- Eric

[dmccunney]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Moy Wong <m...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> ]Welcome to the Wonderful World of Standards. As I recall, there was
> ]various fun back then because the HTML 3 spec wasn't carved in
> ]granite, and everyone had a different idea of how it should be
> ]implemented.
>
> "Standards" indeed! There was once a large office that was ordered to
> "standardize" their software suite on one particular office software
> suite. That very quickly made them incompatible with documents,
> spreadsheets, etc. in nearly every email attachment from the outside
> world and wreaking havoc with their IT department.

Been there, done that.

At a former employer, we had standardized on MS Office as our office
suite, but there was no corporate standards compliance effort. A West
Coast office got a newer version of the suite than we were using, and
started sending us Word docs and Excel spreadsheets we couldn't .open,
because their version was more recent. I wound up bringing in and
installing personal copies of the more recent Word and Excel programs,
so I could re-save their stuff in a backward compatible format we
*could* use.

On a similar line, I used to be a member of the local XyWrite users
group. Another member was an Applications Engineer at a major law
firm which used it, and had made extensive use of XyWrite specific
features. He found himself trying to explain to a senior partner why
they *couldn't* simply shift to Word Perfect, even though the partner
thought it was the current hotness, because most of what they did
could not be done in WP, and an enormous conversion effort would be
required regardless.

For that matter, I know a number of folks who make part or all of
their living writing. The standard in the publishing industry is a
Word document as submission manuscript, and Word's Track Changes
feature is used extensively in line edits. An assortment of them
don't like Word, but have to use it for at least the submission draft
and editing process. They couldn't use things like Libre Ofice/Open
Office Writer, which can generate Word files, because till recently
they weren't properly supporting the Track Changes feature.

> ]HTML code *is* ASCII text. You *could* edit HTML with it now. What
> ]you could not do is get a WYSIWYG preview of what the code would look
> ]like. But there are a plethora of editors designed to edit HTML. I
> ]don't see a reason for VDE to join the crowd.
>
> Yes, HTML is ASCII. I once toyed with creating VDE macros to help
> deploy commonly used <tags>around blocked text</tags>. I agree, use the
> best tool for the job--and I prefer using VDE and its Wordstar-style
> commands for plain *writing*.

And an assortment of other editors use or can be told to use WS
command assignments. However, I don't believe any of the dedicated
HTML editing products are among them.
______
Dennis
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519

[Johann Oskarsson]

Hi,

I'm resurrecting a thread that's almost a decade old, and I'm describing my related work flow.

What you can do, if you want to create HTML documents from VDE, is to create a word processor document, and then use that word processor to export to HTML before you publish.  [1]

This is how I write one of my blogs.  I do all my writing and editing in WordPerfect for DOS, then open the file in WordPerfect for Windows (2021) and export to HTML [2].  It's fairly fast and painless, well after some initial hurdles with the WPDOS interface, which I fixed with a simple macro, for the links.  Any external word processor->HTML conversion tool will do, one of which I think today is Libre Office.  Good luck.

Johann

[1] At least, that's what I've read it can do; I have not personally verified.

[2] I just immediately close the file in the Windows word processor, so I don't edit it there, after the export.