Subject: Re: editing Web pages with pico

From: "H. Bork" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:57:16 +0100 (CET)

....>>pico <filename>
....>This will ruin your HTML.

To my experience 
	PICO does HTML 
as well as any other ASCII-file
and nothing will be broken,

kind regards,
-- 
hal *<:-)
----------------------------------------------------------
                                               [email-masked]

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:51:30 -0600 (CST)

>From: "H. Bork" <[email-masked]>
>Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:57:16 +0100 (CET)

>kind regards,

You kindly deleted my advice that by default, pico wraps lines at the
whitespace to the left of or at the 74th character on a line, and that he
should use the -w switch to more easily edit longer lines.

Now, if you had HTML such as
<a
href="http://some.domain/">Web Page
Name</a>
could your browser load the page? Yes.

Is it ugly code? Yes.
Would a sane person write code like that? No. Does it make it damn difficult to
find encoding mistakes when lines are randomly broken? Of course. That's why
it's better to allow longer lines.

Do you write code like that?

What the hell are you arguing with me for, just to be obnoxious?

---

From: "H. Bork" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:20:59 +0100 (CET)

[OT]
If you are not interested in the beauty of HTML-coding
		simply delete this mail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
_>....>>pico <filename>
_>....>This will ruin your HTML.
_>	PICO does HTML 
_>and nothing will be broken,

_You kindly deleted my advice 
_that by default, pico wraps lines at the
_whitespace to the left of or at the 74th character on a line, 
_and that he_should use the -w switch to more easily edit longer lines.
Thank you. Just quoted the above lines to compensate for 
last time I left it out for shortness sake.
(Warning: two more pages to come. Take your chance and delete mail now.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

IMHO there are several objectives
(1)	write an HTML page		
(2) 	write *beautiful* HTML code 
(3) 	write HTML code *easily*	
	
------------------ As to issue (1): ------------------
I *just* wanted to confirm and emphasize major issue (1):
PICO _can_ be used to write HTML-pages.

_Now, if you had HTML such as
_<a
_href="http://some.domain/">Web Page
_Name</a>
_could your browser load the page? Yes.
That's what you think as well.

------------------ As to issue (2): ------------------
_Is it ugly code? Yes.
You wanted to make your point on issue (2) as well.
Sorry, I did _not_ want to discuss the beauty of HTML coding
hideen behind a browser's curtain. 
(HTML does not mind broken lines etc, cf. below.)

------------------ As to issue (3): ------------------
_...Does it make it ... difficult to
_find encoding mistakes when lines are randomly broken? 
_Of course. 
_That's why it's better to allow longer lines....
On the other hand, I am not fond of editing lines up to 255 bytes,
nor scroll not only vertically but also horizontally all the way.
If pico is the only available tool, one may prefer an 80 byte page
beyond any beauty criteria. (Or even use CR/LF to break lines  
without any effect on the graphic view of an HTML page.)

--------------------- Conclusion ---------------------
I did not want to flame you in any way.
We seem to have different preferences on scrolling.   
So, I just wanted assure those new to web editing alright
	pico does HTML
if nothing else is available.

Please, let us end the discussion on the list now,
all points have been (doubly) made,
it's up to any user's personal preferences 
to choose a tool

-- 
hal :-)