Talk:Comparison of HTML editors
|Comparison of early HTML editors was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 30 December 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Comparison of HTML editors. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated List-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated List-class, Low-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on May 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.|
- 1 Secure FTP
- 2 Missing Footnotes
- 3 Why only WYSIWYG editors on this page?
- 4 Preview Pane
- 5 PHP Support
- 6 Screem
- 7 Release Date
- 8 Opera Dragonfly?
- 9 OS
- 10 SeaMonkey, CSS
- 11 Image format support
- 12 FCKeditor
- 13 Alleycode
- 14 PageBreeze
- 15 Needed: Indications of which HTML each editor supports
- 16 NetObjects Fusion?
- 17 WYSIWYG
- 18 Nominations
- 19 Deletion of this article
- 20 Oracle Open Office
- 21 Bi-di support?
- 22 Expression Web is now free
- 23 The 'Editor features' table is too wide
- 25 Missing some html editors
I was just adding some things to this page and noticed that there are footnotes but their links go nowhere as if someonw deleted that information... [[User:Kiby145|<span style="background:#a00;color:#000">:K<span style="background:#c00">i<span style="background:#d00">rby1</span>4</span>5:</span>]] 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why only WYSIWYG editors on this page?
Since this page is "Comparison of HTML editors" not "Comparison of WYSIWYG HTML editors" and many html editors are *not* WYSIWYG, then why is this comparison page not including them?
I don't want to start the WYSIWYG vs handcode war here, but some of the non-WYSIWYG editors like HomeSite, etc are far more than just text editors, so why not include them here? jwilkinson 21:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good point, but I fear that too many comparison categories would be inapplicable. For instance, syntax highlighting for a wysiwyg editor, or image format support for a text editor. It's a bit like comparing apples to oranges in some cases; we'd probably be better off with two separate comparison pages unless you can devise some way of writing comparison tables that make sense. -Fadookie Talk 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Looking over the page here, I think you'd be surprised at how many of those comparison categories are quite applicable to an advanced code-based HTML/web editor like TopStyle or HomeSite. If it were a big problem, perhaps the article should divide into 2 large sections, one comparing WYSIWYG HTML editors to each other and the other comparing non-WYSIWYG HTML editors to each other... though I don't think that's really necessary. jwilkinson 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also, Comparison of text editors covers many programs that function as HTML text editors. -Fadookie Talk 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- But it doesn't cover them from a point of view concentrating on HTML work. Something like TopStyle or HomeSite is far more than a text editor and favorably compares to the WYSIWYG HTML editors in features. jwilkinson 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- A good compromise is treating all general-purpose text editors as a single option and pointing to the comparison of text editors, maybe expanding that page to include HTML-specific information, while text editors specifically focused on HTML should be treated as individual entries on this list. Verithrax 08:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are many text editors with functions useful for HTML editing. So what sense does it make to single this one out? Moreover, what is including any text editor here over and above repeating information on Comparison of text editors? Perhaps an even better question: In what way, exactly, does GNU Emacs support these web technologies and image formats? -- Smjg (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good questions. I answer the easy part first, that about the images. It can show the images in the text buffer. It knows about image sizes. It also knows XHTML DTD and can validate it and do completion based on it. The latter is with the add-ons nXml/nXhtml. With nXhtml it knows about href links and can follow them, etc. Please see  or the corresponding file on Emacs Wiki.
- There are also frame works for ruby, snippets for PHP etc. See .
- There is an extensive frame work for java (jdee) which some people are currently working on to get it in good shape again for the new Emacs version.
- I feel a bit frustrated. Despite this discussion someone just erased GNU Emacs from this page. I can't see any reason for that. Why waste time that way? Could you however did this please explain? --Nopedia (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Nopedia. I don't make a habit of reading the talk pages for relatively uncontroversial articles before making relatively innocuous changes. It's probably safe to assume the vast majority of edits to Wikipedia are made this way. So please don't feel frustrated—you've done the right thing, sending me a message to ask me to explain, and now we can talk it out.
- My reasoning for removing emacs was simple: I didn't see any compelling reason to list a general-purpose text editor in an article on purpose-built HTML editors, when the article already states plainly that many generic text editors have features to make editing HTML easier and links to a page comparing them. I was too brusque in my edit comment, and I'm sure my intent didn't come across well. Hopefully it is more clear now. —HorsePunchKid (talk) 2010-01-10 19:15:11Z
- Hi, HorsePunchKid. I do not think the page is about "html only" editors. That would help no one. I think we should understand the criteria as "good html" editors. Don't you?--Nopedia (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with HorsePunchKid that this article should be only about WYSIWYG editors. Otherwise many others should be included too, and it is hard to draw a line. Also List of HTML editors links to this article only for the WYSIWYG editors. Maybe one should rename this article and write a comparison of the rest too... --Danh (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be POV to have a thing for excluding GNU emacs. This was in the version of this article merely half a year ago. The title of this current article does not delineate or exclude certain kinds of HTML editors. Whether it is or isn't WYSIWYG is immaterial.Dogru144 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
There should be a column for whether or not the editor has a preview pane. To users of front page or other legacy editors this is a important feature. Though personally i prefer VIM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add Date data to the version column? It is not possible to directly compare version numbers between different software to determine which one is newer. It could then be possible to add the 'discontinued' status into the version column instead of being part of the name. Rgb9000 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- At that moment you're right. But it is an alpha and they plan to expand the tool with many more features (some hints are already given on the dragonfly page!) mabdul 0=* 15:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The table should show compatible operating systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xupid (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Compatibility of operating systems is not germaine to the present site. Only matters of the editors are pertinent to this site. This site does address which operating systems the HTML editors work with. Dogru144 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
A comparison site addresses improvements in SeaMonkey. It now does handle CSS. Please see this review site: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/05/06/25-wysiwyg-editors-reviewed/ --from Smashing Magazine, May 6, 2008. Dogru144 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Image format support
What is the definition of an editor supporting a given image format?
- Acceptance of the user's attempt to include an image in this format?
- Ability to display the image within the editor?
- Ability to convert, if necessary, to GIF, JPEG or PNG?
- Something else entirely?
- I'd be surprised if that's the definition - the table includes TIFF, which isn't normally used on the WWW, so why would any HTML editors generate image files in this format? -- Smjg (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
FCKeditor. Should this WYSIWYG HTML editor be in the table? There is also a branch of it being used for WYSIWYG wiki editing. Please see:
- mw:Extension:FCKeditor (by FCKeditor and Wikia)
- mw:WYSIWYG editor - WYSIWYG editing and software for MediaWiki and some wiki farms. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Alleycode_HTML_Editor. Should this free WYSIWYG HTML editor be in the comparison tables? Please see: http://www.alleycode.com/ Alleycat812 (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC) feel free and be bold!mabdul 0=* 10:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Should this free WYSIWYG HTML editor be in the comparison tables? Please see: http://www.pagebreeze.com/ Alleycat812 (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC) write first an article and then be bold to add it! mabdul 0=* 10:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Needed: Indications of which HTML each editor supports
What isn't mentioned is which of the many specifications of HTML each editor supports, and whether or not it has any validation mechanism. This would be an ideal place to put such information.
HTML 3.2 HTML 4.0 (strict / transitional / frameset ) HTML 4.01 (strict / transitional / frameset ) ISO/IEC 15445:2000 HTML 5 XHTML 1.0 (strict / transitional / frameset ) XHTML 1.1 (strict / transitional / frameset ) XHTML 2.0 (strict / transitional / frameset ) XHTML 5
- By nobody having added it, of course. (That said, in my view it's really just a desktop publisher that likes to think it's an HTML editor.) -- Smjg (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The "WYSIWYG" column has appeared since I last looked. Given that no HTML editor can be truly WYSIWYG for a variety of reasons, what are the criteria for a "Yes" in this column? -- Smjg (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
AS most casual visitors may I came looking for a guide to find a HTML editor can we agree a nomination list ? Perhaps some entry criteria ? --Seanwong (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC) --Seanwong (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of this article
This article must be deleted according to this discussion and result about the deletion of similar list like articles like this one. An aticle of deletion should be created here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editing Comparison of HTML editors. (Onle registered users can do this, so not me) --184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I told you at Talk:Comparison of text editors, that discussion only applies to that article: the rationale does not automatically apply here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Oracle Open Office
I noticed it still said that OpenOffice.org was by Sun Microsystems. Shouldn't that be changed to Oracle? Bradj47 02:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- although oracle bought sun, the application is still known as OOo --> see here. At the moment at least. mabdul 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Expression Web is now free
The 'Editor features' table is too wide
The 'Editor features' table is too wide to display correctly on my system; I'm using the latest Firefox, with the option "Allow pages to choose their own fonts instead of my selections" selected. Specifically, the rightmost column, 'Form Handler', fails to show on screen unless I take extraordinary measures, such as editing the page.
I discovered that changing the wikitable style from font size 90% down to 82% (but nothing larger, say 83%) would fix the problem for me. However, that text size is too small for easy reading even by normally-sighted persons, and I feel that perhaps the table is simply too wide overall. I inspected the headings, which are the widest elements in most columns, but we can't shorten them much without making them harder to understand.
So I have the following questions:
- Could we format the table differently to convey the same information but in a narrower form? (E.g. by rotating the column headings 90% anti-clockwise, to become vertical.)
- Why not drop the 'Form Handler' column, since we only have definite information for one of the editors listed?
- Is there a Wikipedia formatting standard or style guide that governs minimum acceptable text sizes, keeping in mind the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards for web usability by all users, regardless of their physical abilities?
- Similarly, is there a Wikipedia standard on maximum table widths? (We need to keep in mind that many readers now access Wikipedia primarily or only on tablets and smartphones, with very limited screen area.)
Missing some html editors
HotDog wiki article. Sausage software page shows "HotDog Professional 7.03 US$99.95" (originally free). Also Netscape Gold software sold in the mid 90's was often purchased for the included web page editor (http://www.zisman.ca/netgold/; http://www.its.hku.hk/news/ccnews67/netgold3.htm; http://users.cis.fiu.edu/~downeyt/cgs3559/goldhtml.htm; http://www.ling.upenn.edu/advice/netedit.html)(after all Netscape Navigator was a free download (unless you were too dumb to figure that out. Very few of my customers came into the stores I worked at to buy Netscape Gold for the included browser.) Several hosting sites offer free use of "Homesite"; it is still available (http://download.cnet.com/HomeSite/3000-10247_4-10001199.html), but discontinued by Adobe (http://www.adobe.com/products/homesite/) or see wiki page Macromedia HomeSite. Also I don't believe Frontpage (Microsoft Office Frontpage 2003) was free (it was sold in the Microsoft Store and other software sales concerns) but often included free with other products Frontpage for Mac may be free but also has limited functionality (no VBA) like Frontpage Express. Another is Apple iWeb for Mac (part of iLife $80). Shjacks45 (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)