Anyone here using PsPad (4.5.4. or 4.5.5)?

I don't seem to be able to get 4.5.5 to open a new file with the info at the top set to XHTML, (after choosing that from the popup list), and it gives Windows-1250 charset there as well even though the Project is set to UTF-8.

Am I missing something?

You can select the templates tab and choose an xhtml template from there. Also, I think the file's character encoding is taken from the template, so you'd have select the utf-8 template if you want that.

eta; pspad is like a huge knock-off of nopepad++, except without the awesome colour schemes.

Edited by deleted (Mon 25-Apr-11 01:06:19)

What Templates tab?

I've found a way of doing it, which is to go to HTML >> TiDy and that has a Convert entry, which replaces the meta stuff correctly.

But although that works it isn't ideal.

NotePad++? Any serious advantage over PsPad for (x)html/php etc.? Don Ho seems to be a bit scary to me.

File > New > From template > xhtml >

When presented with a list under the New File tab, one would tend to assume the selection there would be all that was needed !

However, you now give me the dilemma of which UTF-8 associated flavour. Strict 1.0; 1.1; or Transitional.

Examines - I don't like the look of the Transitional. What's this though - "<!-- �������؎� -->"? It doesn't appear in the similar BBC header, which incidentally shows 1.0 strict. TimesOnline.co.uk is using 1.0 Transitional.

Further looking around - XHTML Strict 1.0 UTF-8 looks favourite to (for) me.

(I see RobertoS.me.uk is HTML 4.01 Transitional with ISO-8859-1. Built using defaults in NetObjects Fusion 11).

Why not just use html5?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

NotePad++? Any serious advantage over PsPad for (x)html/php etc.? Don Ho seems to be a bit scary to me.

I can't speak for PsPad, but I tend to use standard Notepad for most editiing, and Notepad++ for editing en masse. However, over time, I've taken the route of using .php templates for header, footer etc. Easier to drop them in. They make webpage footprints smaller, and the caching improves page loading markedly.

The difference between strict and transitional is in the interpreter. Most of it is to do with CSS I think;
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mozilla%27s_DOCTYPE...
Strict does not allow (old fashioned) positional html tags and leaves it to CSS2/3, but transitional does. But transitional cause problems due to using old CSS. Something like that, it's been a while. I'd go with strict, as transitional will just get you into bad habits.

This is what transitional does to CSS;

foo^bar _foobar

Sub/superscripted text should not have separate underlining and the underlining should not be affected by bold text. There are loads of little bugs like that in CSS1. It's useless tbh.

Edited by deleted (Mon 25-Apr-11 19:46:32)

In reply to a post by ukwiz:

Why not just use html5?

At first sight that seemed a good idea. But on looking further into it, it seems to have still a rapidly changing specification.

I would be particularly concerned about backwards compatibility, as it seems to be aimed very much at the future of mobile and video/gaming content. At the moment I'm aiming at a site for desktop/laptop access, but with page content sectionalised ready for "simple" conversion to a mobile application, but don't really envisage the HTML5 fancy tricks being needed.

As I've only done any "serious" web stuff using NetObjects Fusion 11, in particular my RobertoS website and something smaller for a local social group, I'm a bit wary of the apparent huge complexity/volume of HTML5 capabilities, and a probable paucity of good tutorials.

Or am I just being a scaredy-baby?