Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of HTML editors

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.89.137.62 (talk) at 15:49, 30 August 2010 (→Deletion of this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Secure FTP

I would like a column that indicates which products support SFTP for publishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.124.2 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Footnotes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also, Comparison of text editors covers many programs that function as HTML text editors. -Fadookie Talk 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

GNU Emacs

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)[reply]

Feel free to add it ;) mabdul 0=* 20:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did Nopedia (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Preview Pane

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 216.99.65.8 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

PHP Support

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

Screem

I was linked here by SCREEM's page, and Screem isn't on here. Can/should it be? 88.11.150.218 (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date

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)[reply]

Opera Dragonfly?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OS

The table should show compatible operating systems.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xupid (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

SeaMonkey, CSS

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)[reply]

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?

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

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)[reply]

FCKeditor

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

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)[reply]

PageBreeze

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)[reply]

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

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

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

NetObjects Fusion?

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

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)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I've been curious about this issue.Dogru144 (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WYSIWYG

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)[reply]

Nominations

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)[reply]

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) --91.89.137.62 (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_HTML_editors&oldid=381897034"