Talk:Comparison of HTML editors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
WikiProject Internet (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Secure FTP[edit]

I would like a column that indicates which products support SFTP for publishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing Footnotes[edit]

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?[edit]

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)
If you can figure out a way of writing comparison tables that make sense, go for it. -Fadookie Talk 09:47, 23 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)

GNU Emacs[edit]

Is there any reason not to include GNU Emacs here? It is not WYSIWG but it has many functions useful for HTML editing (for example nXhtml) --Nopedia (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add it ;) mabdul 0=* 20:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I did Nopedia (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2008 (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 [1] or the corresponding file on Emacs Wiki.
There are also frame works for ruby, snippets for PHP etc. See [2].
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.
There are interesting new approaches for javascript, like the parsing editor [3]. (There are other approaches to this too in CEDET for Emacs.)
Is not that enough? (There is more, of course.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopedia (talkcontribs) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
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)

Preview Pane[edit]

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 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

link for syntax[edit]

Dogru144 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PHP Support[edit]

link for syntax[edit]

Dogru144 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I was linked here by SCREEM's page, and Screem isn't on here. Can/should it be? (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Release Date[edit]

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)

Opera Dragonfly?[edit]

I don't think it's an HTML editor? It's more of a web inspector/debugger like Firebug and Safari's Web Inspector? Ufopedia (talk) 04:19, 19 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

SeaMonkey, CSS[edit]

A comparison site addresses improvements in SeaMonkey. It now does handle CSS. Please see this review site: --from Smashing Magazine, May 6, 2008. Dogru144 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image format support[edit]

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?

-- Smjg (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

  • write image (like svg!)? --mabdul 0=* 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
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:


Alleycode_HTML_Editor. Should this free WYSIWYG HTML editor be in the comparison tables? Please see: 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: 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[edit]

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
XHTML 1.0  (strict / transitional / frameset )
XHTML 1.1  (strict / transitional / frameset )
XHTML 2.0  (strict / transitional / frameset )

(20040302 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

Good contributions!Dogru144 (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

NetObjects Fusion?[edit]

How is NetObjects Fusion not in this list? Isn't it a WYSIWYG web editor?Dogru144 (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

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)
Thanks for the clarification. I've been curious about this issue.Dogru144 (talk) 20:44, 18 July 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[edit]

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) -- (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[edit]

I noticed it still said that 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)

Bi-di support?[edit]

which of these are supporting bi-directionality? because dreamweaver is really bad at it-- (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Expression Web is now free[edit]

As the title says.... (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The 'Editor features' table is too wide[edit]

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:

  1. 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.)
  2. Why not drop the 'Form Handler' column, since we only have definite information for one of the editors listed?
  3. 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?
  4. 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.)

yoyo (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Which Editors run in Java/Javascript/zero-install/non-admin install[edit]

The tables could helpfully document which editors are build/run in Java (JRE), Javascript, or are otherwise likely to be "non admin install" if running on a locked down computer (assuming a java/javascript enabled browser browser is installed, or Java Webstart is installed). Zero-admin means that the programme doesn't need to create registry entries, register DLLs, need to put any files in program files, windows/system or windows/system32 etc. and is available unbundled from an installer or can be unbundled by zipping up files of a working install where all the files are easy to find. (Good no-admin install text editor examples are notepad++ and PFE.)

I know that some of the editors listed are JavaScript, and maybe Java. The comparison of text editors does show ones developed in Java, for example.

-- (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing some html editors[edit]

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 (;;; 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 (, but discontinued by Adobe ( 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)

Not all are HTML editors[edit]

I installed the openElement and found out that it can not open an HTML file. What you can do is make a project, open the source view and see the code... editing is limidet. You can not paste the html from somewhere else. So it is not usable to edit my HTML files, that i have on my disk. I would not say that openElement is a "HTML editor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

LibreOffice as well as OpenOffice?[edit]

The table mentions Presumably any of its features, including HTML editing support, is also available in LibreOffice. -- (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC) (SPageWMF on a public computer, honest :-) )


Is Kompozer really "discontinued?" The web page seems to be stuck in 2010, but the SourceForge page has a May, 2016 version. (It's not clear what's updated, though -- I installed it, and it still shows a 2010 copyright notice.) NCdave (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of HTML editors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)