Easily implemented improvement?

[richinri]

I know Xara is selling the "don't worry about code" thinking, but the reality of the web today is one must get into code at times.
A simple change that would be great is if an end comment tag could be added to the </div> tag for those that have to get into code.
Example:
<div class="fooclass">
blah, blah, blah
</div><!-- end fooclass -->
Having worked code for years, I cannot tell you what a time saver this can be for those trying to sort code out or properly place things.

[covoxer]

Well, the html produced by WD is not supposed to be edited.
It's true, that someone may want to get into code. For this reason we have provided paceholder mechanism. If you want some custom code, it's better to use it with placeholders.

In your example, there's class set. Usually, WD does not set any unique classes to generated elements. So the end tag comment can't be meaningful.

[bayoda]

Wouldn't it be a nice feature:

A Professional Mode - for CSS Tags so we can work with them?
Name DIV's set classes (as with the name gallery)

that would help a lot - even with "forms" a requested feature ;-) for 5.0.2

greetings

michael

[covoxer]

Wouldn't it be a nice feature:

A Professional Mode - for CSS Tags so we can work with them?
Name DIV's set classes (as with the name gallery)

that would help a lot - even with "forms" a requested feature ;-) for 5.0.2

greetings

michael

Well, how can you set any properties to divs in WD, if you don't have such an object as div in WD? You can't even predict wether there will be any divs at all.

[richinri]

I should have said:
<!-- begin code block whatever-->
foobar code
<!-- end block whatever -->
in my original post. I know enough about programming to know this would not be a big deal to implement.
Xara has done yet another great program with XWD. But it is a pure WYSIWYG editor and NO program that starts out as pure WYSIWYG stays there if it is to remain in the market. They all progress by keeping the simplicity of WYSIWYG and adding deeper functionality to expand their user base.
But whatever you do Xara, don't become a Dreamweaver!

[covoxer]

I should have said:
<!-- begin code block whatever-->
foobar code
<!-- end block whatever -->

What is "whatever"? If your point is that you have problems associating opening tags with closing tags, then simply use better editor. There are plenty freeware syntax highlighting editors out there. But I would suggest you, and enyone else, to avoid editing files exported by WD. If you have to use custom code, use placeholders instead.

But it is a pure WYSIWYG editor

Yes, exactly. Unlike anything else you know.

and NO program that starts out as pure WYSIWYG stays there if it is to remain in the market.

That's because they are not WYSIWYG.
Eventually, marketing success has little to do with the functionality, so I wouldn't bring this argument here. After all, most commercially successful OS, graphics software, programming language, CPU core, e.t.c., is not the best existing.

They all progress by keeping the simplicity of WYSIWYG and adding deeper functionality to expand their user base.

As you have probably noticed, WD provides you with tool to almost unlimited extension. There are placeholder objects, and you can enter any html code you like into them. I would recommend to use this approach instead of editing resulting code every time you re-export.

[richinri]

The dream of never having to edit code is years old and still not realized. I could list a number of applications that started out with the "never edit code" sales pitch only to have to add more and more to help people "edit the code."
As I said I have been doing sites for 13 years and here is what I am hearing more and more from clients, "I want the code to be software independent so the next guy can work with it."
Xara has done another great program - I am not complaining. My point is simple - there is way to write code that makes it easier to edit in the event - the HIGHLY LIKELY event - that at some point it will need to be edited.
Those that don't understand this are those that don't really program sites - they draw them - which is fine for some basic sites. But after 13 years I am well aware that most sites will eventually go beyond the drawing or placeholder stage.

[dogbertbh]

But after 13 years I am well aware that most sites will eventually go beyond the drawing or placeholder stage.

But at that point, wouldn't the user looking to "go beyond" look to a product that does what they need rather than continue drawing?

To me, this is like an amateur (pronounced HACK) golfer asking to have bleachers installed on his local course in case he makes the pro tour.

When he gets to that venue, the bleachers will be available.

I don't need code - I don't need to edit anything outside of XWD. I'm perfectly fine with the way it is. If it turns out I'm no longer satisfied, I may have to move on to Dreamweaver or some other non-true-WYSIWYG design tool.

[covoxer]

The dream of never having to edit code is years old and still not realized.

Well, someone has to be first.
Seriously though, there are tasks that may be solved without code editing. For these you have WD. There are also tasks for which you may get solution from someone who can code, thus you have snippets which you can use with WD without code editing (Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V is not code editing).
But, if you have tasks that can not be solved visually in WD and there's no snippet available, and your skills allow you to write code - then write it! But use placeholders to insert it.

I could list a number of applications that started out with the "never edit code" sales pitch only to have to add more and more to help people "edit the code."

As you understand, WD is not one of them. Let me explain you the idea from the programmer point of view.
All the other wysiwyg authoring tools (except for some template based) are built around the html representation of the content. This means, that html code is their internal representation of the design. Every visual object has explicit representation in code. The visual editing process is actually a process of editing html code which is dynamically updated and rendered on the working space. This is the straightforward approach, so it is inherently simple and seems to be logically obvious. But, it has significant drawbacks. HTML is very limited format (language actually) by it's graphic capabilities. So the visual tool set based on pure html is poor and insufficient for free design work. This requires all the non trivial elements to be created in stand alone graphic software and embedded as a bitmap images. This process adds unnecessary hassle and actually is mostly redundant. For example, after you create graphic element in graphic editor, you have to visually position it in the wysiwyg authoring tool together with all other such elements created the same way. While you had initially created and composed all those elements in graphic program. So the steps to split them and then repeat the arrangement in the authoring tool is just a waste of time and effort.
Our wysiwyg model is based on the vector graphics format (xar) and not html. So we have no limitations on the graphical design capabilities. This differs greatly from all other wysiwyg authoring tools. The design is not represented as html internally. This also means that you can't edit html source like in other authoring tools, since it does not exist, and WD even can't predict what this code will look like until you do export and all the internal design is converted to the html analog.
But we provided a way for expansion which is obviously needed. You can use your own code if you like. As I say, use placeholders.
I hope this explanation will help to understand following things:
1. WD is not one of those wysiwyg editors you know.
2. There is no html editor because there is nothing to edit.
3. You can add you "hand made" code if you want using placeholders, so WD is absolutely expandable.

"I want the code to be software independent so the next guy can work with it."

Then you can probably use WD for prototyping only. We were not positioning it for such development purposes as you can clearly see from marketing materials.

there is way to write code that makes it easier to edit in the event - the HIGHLY LIKELY event - that at some point it will need to be edited.

You want to solve it by simply bloating code with trivial automatically generated comments?

Those that don't understand this are those that don't really program sites - they draw them - which is fine for some basic sites.

Exactly! That's what WD is made for - to draw sites. Not to code by any means.

But after 13 years I am well aware that most sites will eventually go beyond the drawing or placeholder stage.

Well, after 13 years, do you need WD at all? There are quite few html coders with comparable experience level who do not need any authoring software at all. Knowledge is the king. But it's wery expensive.... i'm getting OT.
On the other hand, your experience is based on commercial clients who pay for sites and expect them to grow. While personal or family, small business and many others do not grow that much. And of course they are mostly not your clients so do not contribute to your experience. But there is quite a lot of them. And there's even more people who had not created such site simply because they hadn't found a way to do it. We believe that WD will help many of them to create their first site.

[cursor]

We believe that WD will help many of them to create their first site.

And their second website (quicker than with any other authoring tool), and their third (more accurately displayed across multiple browsers) ... and their nth (with more time to focus on graphic presentation and quality content).

No doubt as the product matures, designers will do more, in less time, and with improved representation. Thanks Xara.