Filed under: Software
Sandvox updated to 1.1
In the Mac-user make-Web-page so-very-pretty no-use-nasty-HTML market, the big kahunas are iWeb, RapidWeaver, and Karelia Sandvox -- guess which one just got revved to version 1.1? If you recall, Karelia came up with one of the most original utilities ever, the Web scraping and search tool Watson, which won it a spot in the "Wow, Apple's new seach app (Sherlock 3) looks... familiar" Hall of Fame. The fact that Karelia introduced an HTML editor not long before iWeb came out is both ironic and unfortunate, since Sandvox is a topnotch tool deserving of more attention.New in 1.1 (from karelia.com) --
- 8 gorgeous new site designs
- New help system
- Localization to Italian and Simplified Chinese languages
- A snapshot feature to cleanly save your work in progress
- Greatly improved Flash file support
[via MacNN]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
derek said 12:28PM on 12-17-2006
If Apple stole it, wouldn't they have been sued? Idiot, stop saying bad things about Apple on an APPLE BLOG!!!!
Reply
Michael Rose said 12:31PM on 12-17-2006
Derek, time for meds check. "Unofficial Apple Weblog" -- we're not part of Apple and we can say nice or nasty things depending on our whim. And the suing or not-suing of Apple is Karelia's business, but it's generally accepted that Sherlock 3 was HEAVILY inspired by Watson.
Reply
derek said 1:01PM on 12-17-2006
Bull shit. Apple doesn't "steal" software, or they would have just stolen Cover Flow and not have PAID for it. If Apple is going to make an application, they design it, not steal it. You are talking like Apple is Microsoft.
Reply
Michael Rose said 1:10PM on 12-17-2006
Derek, did you ever use Watson? And Sherlock 3?
Try them both and see what you think.
Sure, Apple buys applications and companies; so does Microsoft, so does Google. Sometimes they also borrow things.
Reply
michael said 1:11PM on 12-17-2006
#3 Bull shit. Apple doesn't "steal" software, or they would have just stolen Cover Flow and not have PAID for it
cough cough *konfabulator* cough cough
Reply
derek said 1:13PM on 12-17-2006
Yes, I have used both, and if you are a developer, you would have known they had been working on it longer than those apps were in existance. So if you don't know what you are takling about, shut up
Reply
Mike said 1:38PM on 12-17-2006
From what I've seen, Sandvox produces far cleaner code than iWeb does. If anyone follows the links to a few of the "happy users' sites" from Karelia's site (menu on left side at top) and takes a look at the source of the pages, then I think he'd have to agree that the code is better than what iWeb writes.
iWeb's HTML would likely go through the W3C validator, but that's really not the point. It is totally unstructured and some of the most non-"semantic" code I've seen. It doesn't even use paragraph tags. Essentially, it produces wasteful mark-up and mark-up that would not be easy for someone else to maintain at a later date by hand, if that were necessary.
If you point this tool -
http://www.w3.org/2003/12/semantic-extractor.html
- at a well-written semantically-rich webpage it can extract plenty of useful information. Try it with access-guy Joe Clarke's blog:
http://blog.fawny.org/
Or with this well marked-up text of an Orwell essay:
http://www.aubp41.dsl.pipex.com/essays/orwell.html
Then try it on an iWeb page. I'll guarantee you won't get such useful output.
Extractable semantics at this level would be too much to expect from anything that wasn't coded, at least partly, by hand. But I think the larger point about wastefulness, sense in the page-structure, and ease of maintenance when the tool might not be available, is a valid one. And, as I say, Sandvox's code looks cleaner and better-structured to me.
Reply
Scott Stevenson said 1:51PM on 12-17-2006
Sandvox uses WebKit for editing, whereas iWeb does not. That might account for some of the differences.
Reply