HTML Editor 2010SE (Second Edition)...

User 122279 Photo


Senior Advisor
14,461 posts

I have the same problem with Norwegian characters as before! Like the Dutchman I also get à and the Yen sign and some other weird ones instead. I have to get back to the old version - again. :(

A source file can be found at http://www.eikweb.com/krakow/index2.html

To see what it really should be looking like, same url except for the 2.
Ha en riktig god dag!
Inger, Norway

My work in progress:
Components for Site Designer and the HTML Editor: https://mock-up.coffeecup.com


User 22448 Photo


Registered User
23 posts

I've just skimmed the manual with the new version of the HTML Editor.

I did not find any reference to the problem which I have read occurs when using the code editor and the visual editor on the same file.

Is it still recommended to only use one or the other on particular files, or can we transfer files between without problems now?

Thanks,
John Williams
Keep smiling and winning
John Williams
More tricks & stunts to amaze & amuse
http://www.ezyebook.com/emm.html
User 103173 Photo


VP of Software Development
0 posts

Inger Eik wrote:
I have the same problem with Norwegian characters as before! Like the Dutchman I also get à and the Yen sign and some other weird ones instead. I have to get back to the old version - again. :(

A source file can be found at http://www.eikweb.com/krakow/index2.html

To see what it really should be looking like, same url except for the 2.

Wasn't this something to do with your markup though Inger? I took the same text you used and pasted into to the editor here and I had no problems at all. I have actually made a good dozen websites it pretty much any language I can't read, and they all look correct to me. ;)

There were also quite a few beta testers that posted it worked fine for them. Did you ever see what they were doing that was different then what you were?

Sample:
http://hotsync.net/utf8.html
Learn the essentials with these quick tips for Responsive Site Designer, Responsive Email Designer, Foundation Framer, and the new Bootstrap Builder. You'll be making awesome, code-free responsive websites and newsletters like a boss.
User 103173 Photo


VP of Software Development
0 posts

John Williams wrote:
I've just skimmed the manual with the new version of the HTML Editor.

I did not find any reference to the problem which I have read occurs when using the code editor and the visual editor on the same file.

Is it still recommended to only use one or the other on particular files, or can we transfer files between without problems now?

Thanks,
John Williams

It is HIGHLY recommend you do not do that. You should stick to either the code editor or visual editor. Transferring back and forth causes the code to be re-written so you can use it in a visual mode.
Learn the essentials with these quick tips for Responsive Site Designer, Responsive Email Designer, Foundation Framer, and the new Bootstrap Builder. You'll be making awesome, code-free responsive websites and newsletters like a boss.
User 122279 Photo


Senior Advisor
14,461 posts

My markup validates, and it it the same markup that I can use in the now 'old' version without problems. What I may be doing differently might be that I use iso-8859-1. I'll try utf-8 tomorrow.
Ha en riktig god dag!
Inger, Norway

My work in progress:
Components for Site Designer and the HTML Editor: https://mock-up.coffeecup.com


User 103173 Photo


VP of Software Development
0 posts

Inger Eik wrote:
My markup validates, and it it the same markup that I can use in the now 'old' version without problems. What I may be doing differently might be that I use iso-8859-1. I'll try utf-8 tomorrow.

I will do some tests shortly and make a video of what I am doing here and you can compare that tomorrow with what you are doing there.
Learn the essentials with these quick tips for Responsive Site Designer, Responsive Email Designer, Foundation Framer, and the new Bootstrap Builder. You'll be making awesome, code-free responsive websites and newsletters like a boss.
User 1961146 Photo


Registered User
26 posts

I just want to thank everybody at Coffee Cup for all the hard work you guys do for us.

User 103173 Photo


VP of Software Development
0 posts

Inger Eik wrote:
My markup validates, and it it the same markup that I can use in the now 'old' version without problems. What I may be doing differently might be that I use iso-8859-1. I'll try utf-8 tomorrow.

Here is a video of what I am doing on my end. This uses UTF-8. The site looks the same in IE, FireFox, Safari and Opera.

Let me know if you can reproduce a good page this way and then we can work from there to see if I can get it to fail using the steps you are taking.

Download video (9.2MB).

Update: If I use iso-8859-1, then I do see those strange characters you are describing. Is there any reason to use that character set over UTF-8? Once I switch back from iso-8859-1 to UTF-8, everything worked again.

I did find this article which may help explain things: http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum23/4227.htm
Learn the essentials with these quick tips for Responsive Site Designer, Responsive Email Designer, Foundation Framer, and the new Bootstrap Builder. You'll be making awesome, code-free responsive websites and newsletters like a boss.
User 463060 Photo


Registered User
4 posts

In my opinion the HTML Editor 2010SE (Second Edition) is a downgrading version. The predefined themes are not so nice then in the previous version and the user must move all existing themes to the user directory (documents and settings).

This version offers HTML5 / CSS3 support, but HTML5 and CSS 3 are still a work in progress. Supporting these new web languages is trendy, but not obligatory required. But implementing full utf-8-encoding (encoding/saving files with options like utf-8 with or without bom) is overdue. All other professional editors and dozens of free editors offer a function like this. I don't understand: Why CoffeeCup-Team is so ignorant?
User 117361 Photo


Ambassador
6,076 posts

Hi Jens
ouch....
I just took a quick look at a "professional" editor and see that their prices start at about 10 times as much as CC costs... so I took them out of the picture right away on the assumption that they have endless resources of all kinds to develop the kind of software they produce.

Then rightly or wrongly, I assume that a lot of the free editors you mention are those being developed under the Open Source umbrella. Yet again, precisely because of the whole OS mission, I believe they have many human resources available to develop their software which is almost always released as a work in progress and to be used "as is".

From my experience in here, much of the CC software develops in respect of currect and forthcoming standards - and also - and here is the good part - as a result of a great deal of feedback from CC users in here.

Let's not be too hasty in condemning them and certainly calling them "ignorant" seems way out of line for the context of your post. I just hope with time you will see just how much good work they do, and if not, that you find the perfect software to fit your needs.

Have something to add? We’d love to hear it!
You must have an account to participate. Please Sign In Here, then join the conversation.