Open Source Dreamweaver .dwt Templates Editor??

[somma]

Now that Dreamweaver is or will be a part of Adobe, I have to ask what will
become of Dreamweaver against GoLive.

If I have .dwt templates and for some reason Adobe decides that GoLive is
better and drops template support for some no good reason, is it possible to
get or create an open source editor that edits, creates, supports and
updates .dwt template files like Dreamweaver does?

Huge sites are made with dreamweaver templates....so I have to wonder and
look to the future....

I see or have found no patents or anything regarding Dreamweaver's templates
features, thus, can I say that an open source is a viable option if Adobe
screws up Dreamweaver like it did with Page Mill as well as all of it's
other web products?

[url]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsea rch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=an%2Fmacromedia&d=p txt[/url]

[Murray *TMM*]

I don't think you will have to worry about this anytime soon....

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
[url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
[url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
[url]http://www.dwfaq.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
[url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"somma" <some192@google.com> wrote in message
news:d41bvf$e70$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> Now that Dreamweaver is or will be a part of Adobe, I have to ask what
> will
> become of Dreamweaver against GoLive.
>
> If I have .dwt templates and for some reason Adobe decides that GoLive is
> better and drops template support for some no good reason, is it possible
> to
> get or create an open source editor that edits, creates, supports and
> updates .dwt template files like Dreamweaver does?
>
> Huge sites are made with dreamweaver templates....so I have to wonder and
> look to the future....
>
> I see or have found no patents or anything regarding Dreamweaver's
> templates
> features, thus, can I say that an open source is a viable option if Adobe
> screws up Dreamweaver like it did with Page Mill as well as all of it's
> other web products?
>
> [url]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsea rch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=an%2Fmacromedia&d=p txt[/url]
>
>
>
>
>

[somma]

I hope I don't have to worry about it at all and hope that Adobe is smart
enough to keep Dreamweaver and all its wonderful features and drop GoLive...

But based on the awful, actually complete failure of Adobe with regards to
all of their past web products, one can only wonder considering Adobe has
essentially zero success with their web products.

There is so much that Adobe has to learn about the web as well as web design
and development it's not funny and downright scary to users of Macromedia.

Users of Dreamweaver need to protect themselves to the whims of management
that none of us have any idea what is going to happen....

There are thousand / millions of massive web sites running on Dreamweaver
templates so one can never be too sure.....






"Murray *TMM*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
news:d41kqp$q2c$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> I don't think you will have to worry about this anytime soon....
>
> --
> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
> Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
> ==================
> [url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
> [url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
> [url]http://www.dwfaq.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
> [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
> ==================
>
> "somma" <some192@google.com> wrote in message
> news:d41bvf$e70$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> > Now that Dreamweaver is or will be a part of Adobe, I have to ask what
> > will
> > become of Dreamweaver against GoLive.
> >
> > If I have .dwt templates and for some reason Adobe decides that GoLive

is

> > better and drops template support for some no good reason, is it

possible

> > to
> > get or create an open source editor that edits, creates, supports and
> > updates .dwt template files like Dreamweaver does?
> >
> > Huge sites are made with dreamweaver templates....so I have to wonder

and

> > look to the future....
> >
> > I see or have found no patents or anything regarding Dreamweaver's
> > templates
> > features, thus, can I say that an open source is a viable option if

Adobe

> > screws up Dreamweaver like it did with Page Mill as well as all of it's
> > other web products?
> >
> >

[url]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsea rch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=an%2Fmacromedia&d=p txt[/url]

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

>
>

[Alan]

> I don't think you will have to worry about this anytime soon....

I not worried about this at all....

also, as long as you don't use any MX specific template items like nested
templates or editable attributes etc, there's many ways to edit them.
GoLive for instance... Any copy of Dreamweaver, and there are a few
serverside scripts that allow online editing that honor the pre-MX template
syntax. [url]http://www.jtr.de/scripting/php/dwteditor/index_eng.html[/url]

[James Shook]

somma wrote:

> There is so much that Adobe has to learn about the web as well as web design
> and development it's not funny and downright scary to users of Macromedia.

I don't think that Adobe is as clueless about the web as many in this
news group seem to believe. Yes, most of their efforts to create web
authoring software have either failed or achieved only a modest success.
I suspect that this is because they operate under several assumptions
which are foreign to most of the people here. Here's what I think they
think:

1) Photoshop is the hub of all media production. This means that
designing for the web boils down to designing in Photoshop and then
passing off that design to some other program to turn it into a web
page. This leads to semi-automated techniques that are similar to
slicing and exporting from Fireworks, or DW's layout mode.

2) Their customer base is visual designers who don't care or want to
know much of anything about HTML. As long as it looks OK in the browser
they're happy. If content changes in such a way that the sliced and
diced page starts to break apart, it's back to Photoshop.

3) Their customer base designs for several media, like, for example web
and print. I sometimes get work from design studios that have either
..PSD or .PDF files and want me to "turn them into web pages." They have
spent a lot of time tweaking the print materials and they expect the
same degree of control over a web page based on their design. Adobe
encourages this delusion by the way they present their flagship products
as an integrated, design-once-publish-many solution.

I think the main task we have with respect to the acquisition is to
convince Adobe that there is a market for designers who work very
closely, if not exclusively, at the code level and don't want an
exclusively point 'n click interface that prevents us from coding
directly. Sure, keep/expand layout mode (or whatever they will call it
in whatever product DW becomes) but to don't try to save us from
ourselves. We know what we are doing, so don't make a product that won't
let us do it.

--
James M. Shook
[url]http://www.jshook.com[/url]

[somma]

Well said.

And may I add that these graphic designers who use PhotoShop to design for
print and then also for the web also have no clue about usability. That is,
it's one thing to make an advertisement or poster or packaging for a
product, but it's a complete different thing to making something like a web
page, easy to use for the visitor reading it.

And on top of this usability, I want elaborate that these web pages need to
actually *do something* other than just sit there and look good on some
billboard or magazine. Sort of like FLASH, there is interactivity with this
picture as opposed to no interactivity.

Most Photoshop professionals have no clue that this picture they are making
needs to be interactive and usable (and maintainable) as opposed to just
being readible and aesthetically pleasing or eye-catching.

What Adobe needs to understand is that users of their software and
Macromedia's Dreamweaver are making "software web pages *products*" that
need to be usable like PhotoShop is usable as opposed to just pictures.

Well actually that's incorrect, software web pages need to be more user
friendly than Photoshop and you shouldn't need years of experience or a bag
full of tricks to do something on a web page. Adobe also has to understand
that these web pages constantly change and they are not these print ads that
have proofs and then are printed and set in stone.

Now if Adobe can understand that, than that would be a big improvement.









"James Shook" <jshook@dont_mail.com> wrote in message
news:d430a1$o4k$4@forums.macromedia.com...

> somma wrote:
>

> > There is so much that Adobe has to learn about the web as well as web

design

> > and development it's not funny and downright scary to users of

Macromedia.

>
> I don't think that Adobe is as clueless about the web as many in this
> news group seem to believe. Yes, most of their efforts to create web
> authoring software have either failed or achieved only a modest success.
> I suspect that this is because they operate under several assumptions
> which are foreign to most of the people here. Here's what I think they
> think:
>
> 1) Photoshop is the hub of all media production. This means that
> designing for the web boils down to designing in Photoshop and then
> passing off that design to some other program to turn it into a web
> page. This leads to semi-automated techniques that are similar to
> slicing and exporting from Fireworks, or DW's layout mode.
>
> 2) Their customer base is visual designers who don't care or want to
> know much of anything about HTML. As long as it looks OK in the browser
> they're happy. If content changes in such a way that the sliced and
> diced page starts to break apart, it's back to Photoshop.
>
> 3) Their customer base designs for several media, like, for example web
> and print. I sometimes get work from design studios that have either
> .PSD or .PDF files and want me to "turn them into web pages." They have
> spent a lot of time tweaking the print materials and they expect the
> same degree of control over a web page based on their design. Adobe
> encourages this delusion by the way they present their flagship products
> as an integrated, design-once-publish-many solution.
>
> I think the main task we have with respect to the acquisition is to
> convince Adobe that there is a market for designers who work very
> closely, if not exclusively, at the code level and don't want an
> exclusively point 'n click interface that prevents us from coding
> directly. Sure, keep/expand layout mode (or whatever they will call it
> in whatever product DW becomes) but to don't try to save us from
> ourselves. We know what we are doing, so don't make a product that won't
> let us do it.
>
> --
> James M. Shook
> [url]http://www.jshook.com[/url]