I have to agree on some points here. ;-) I prefer ZPT to dtml now because of the much clearer namespaces and html nesting , even though i never use WYSIWYG editors.. They work much better than DTML with text-editors too , as color coding is correct , and they are compatible with HTML/XML tools , like TIDY.. Une misunderstanding that should be cleared up , though , it that they force you to write valid XHTML.. This idea seems to have been ditched a while ago , and as of the current implementation , creating valid XHTML documents (especially with forms) is almost impossible - because of the way they handle single attributes , like 'selected' and 'checked' (which are not single at all in XHTML, but written explicitly , like this : selected="selected") .. This is not currently supportd by ZPT.. :-( - and dreamweaver f***s up valid XHTML totally, but perhaps GoLive can fare better in this respect ? anyway , ZPT rule! - with or without WYSIWYG editors! -- Geir Bækholt web-developer/zopatista geirh@funcom.com funcom oslo | webdev-team <!-- PGPid : 0x90B47B20 --> on or about, Friday, June 22, 2001, we have reason to believe that Peter Bengtsson wrote something along the lines of : PB> They can be used in a WYSIWYG editor fine. Much better than DTML can. PB> The editing advantage of ZPT comes third on my list of importance of ZPT. PB> 1) More clear. No mix of namespaces makes coding stricter and easier to PB> maintain PB> 2) Forces valid XHTML. With DTML you seldomly get a clear picture of your PB> <span> and <table> tags. In our environment the skill level varies greatly PB> and novice users tend to bombard it with invalid HTML and hence PB> undisplayable in Opera or Netscape PB> Peter