I had not heard of performancing, so I just installed in in my Firefox to see what it is all about. Looks very interesting. And it points out another slice across this whole word processing thing:
Firefox plugins
Really: Look at Google toolbar, Xinha here, Performancing, etc: What would it take to write a Firefox plugin that meets my simple needs for word processing? And looking at Googles track record here: what would stop them from integrating this with Writely so that you could have both offline and online capabilities? That is the big knock against the web office: That is does not work when you are disconnected from the Internet. Firefox browsers with sophisticated plugins like these though... that seems to open a whole new world of possibilities. The browser really would be the OS for all intents and purposes. At least the user interface part of it.
It seems to me that Writely has been fairly spry lately. I am guessing that Google will disperse it over there 250k+ servers worldwide, 'overnet' style, so that it is every bit as responsive as Google Search, at least over time. I hope they fix the HTML generation along the way.
As for toggling to IE with the Firefox extension: From a theoretical point of view it would be interesting to see if Firefox under Linux, with that extension, would launch IE under Codeweavers. But if I found a site someplace out on the Internet that only looked good under IE , I just wouldn't go there. I was scarred by Code Red and Nimda and all the weeks of my life I lost to fighting them, and all these zero day things recently. If FireFox can't view it, usually Opera can. If those two can't view it, then how good could the content really be? If I put up content that was not web standards compliant, the folks at talk.bmc.com would have every right to pull my chain about it. The standard is HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0, not the browser. The browser just has to do a good job rendering it. I hear IE 7 is very good at standards based HTML rendering: that will be an interesting 'space to watch'. Especially how long it will be before I can run it under Codeweavers on Linux... :)
Text editors for the web
Posted byAlysia Korelcat
2006-10-09 16:47
Performancing does render compliant html, a good thing; not all text editors, as you've already experienced, are built to do so (sigh). There are some offline editors I've come across, like Qumana or Ecto, and Textwrangler for OS X and Unix. I used to use a little desktop application called Text-to-Web. The bottom-line purpose of text editors, I think, is to make life easier for those of use who write 'stuff' for the web, whatever, and wherever, it may be.
Firefox plugins
Really: Look at Google toolbar, Xinha here, Performancing, etc: What would it take to write a Firefox plugin that meets my simple needs for word processing? And looking at Googles track record here: what would stop them from integrating this with Writely so that you could have both offline and online capabilities? That is the big knock against the web office: That is does not work when you are disconnected from the Internet. Firefox browsers with sophisticated plugins like these though... that seems to open a whole new world of possibilities. The browser really would be the OS for all intents and purposes. At least the user interface part of it.
It seems to me that Writely has been fairly spry lately. I am guessing that Google will disperse it over there 250k+ servers worldwide, 'overnet' style, so that it is every bit as responsive as Google Search, at least over time. I hope they fix the HTML generation along the way.
As for toggling to IE with the Firefox extension: From a theoretical point of view it would be interesting to see if Firefox under Linux, with that extension, would launch IE under Codeweavers. But if I found a site someplace out on the Internet that only looked good under IE , I just wouldn't go there. I was scarred by Code Red and Nimda and all the weeks of my life I lost to fighting them, and all these zero day things recently. If FireFox can't view it, usually Opera can. If those two can't view it, then how good could the content really be? If I put up content that was not web standards compliant, the folks at talk.bmc.com would have every right to pull my chain about it. The standard is HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0, not the browser. The browser just has to do a good job rendering it. I hear IE 7 is very good at standards based HTML rendering: that will be an interesting 'space to watch'. Especially how long it will be before I can run it under Codeweavers on Linux... :)