Talk:HTML editor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Conceptual confusion/mistake on column "Dynamic Web page". It is correlated to "Templates". The "dynamic generation" process "OUT of server" (not a server-side generation). See concept on web template system and dynamic web page.

SUGESTION: remove the column.

Reply to David's edit summary comment on the best way to mention FrontPage's code mangling, yes, I think it is better. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article needs a thorough rewrite, though ... - David Gerard 14:43, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ugh

The discussion of WYSIWYG in this article is so horribly biased that I don't even know where to start. Can we just rip the whole thing out and start again? —Kate | Talk 03:41, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

With what, specifically, do you take issue? Andy Mabbett 07:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It starts with one neutral sentence describing what a WYSIWYG editor is, then one sentence saying they're easier to use. The entire rest of the article then:
  • Criticises them because they don't produce valid code (without noting that this isn't inherent in the concept of an editor);
  • Refers to "old versions of frontpage" to support this;
  • Criticises them because WYSIWYG "doesn't make sense" for HTML (doesn't it? why not?);
  • Criticises them because the results don't look the same on every browser, without explaining why this should be considered a bad thing;
  • Cites "web specialists" with no references;
  • Makes the dubious claim that "every web browser has bugs";
  • Makes no attempt to then suggest reasons that WYSIWYG editors could be useful.
This whole section could be retitled as "Why you shouldn't use HTML editors" and no-one would notice. —Kate | Talk 08:14, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
Yes, there's no reason that a WYSIWYDG editor should necessarily produce invalid code. I'm not sure if there happen to be any that do generate valid code. What's DreamWeaver like in this regard, for that matter? As for why WYSIWYG doesn't make sense for HTML, it's simple:
  • Pages can be displayed in many different forms and configurations:
    • different window widths and font scales
    • different browser support and configuration for things like CSS
    • different kinds of presentation (graphical, text, speech, braille....)
  • Even within one mode of presentation, several details are left unspecified by the standard, since HTML is not intended as a graphic design language
DreamWeaver currently produces valid XHTML when. When used by a competent person it has always been possible to configure it to produce code which complied to standards but at the current version it produces pretty clean code by default. I prefer hand-coding and don't use much WYSIWYG, so I was taken aback to learn about this fact from co-workers who only know how to use DreamWeaver.
I suppose the main reason people criticise rendering differences between browsers is that too many web designers come from graphic design backgrounds and are used to having this level of control. If only it could be got into people's heads that the WWW just isn't like that, the world would be a better place.
Maybe I'll think about how I'd refactor the page at some point.... -- Smjg 15:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As far as the claim that "every browser has bugs", I agree that it is an unproven assertion (though almost certainly valid). However, I do know at least one source (Elizabeth Castro, Visual Quickstart Guide to HTML, XHTML & CSS) which claims that there are no browsers which fully support the current CSS specifications. Sometimes a browser tries to comply and does so incorrectly (bug), but more often there are tags/attributes which are simply ignored (arguably not so much a bug as a lack of a feature). Maybe that would be a suitable compromise wording?
With regard to your comment about the incumbency on an editor to produce valid HTML, isn't it fair to say that WYSIWYG editors in WYSIWYG mode are in fact not editors but code generators, because in WYSIWYG mode it is not necessary for the human user to interact with the HTML? I agree that it is not inherent that an editor will generate valid code. A C programmer's text editor will not guarantee even compilation, let alone complete ANSI C compliance. However, it is certainly desirable for an automatic code generator to generate syntactically valid code. --Sapphire Wyvern

[edit] Attempt at NPOV

I have attempted to remove some obvious bias. Some always/all type generalizations removed. "Web specialists" removed. Reworded discussion about WYSIWYG editors, notably HTML is not WYSIWYG. Focused more on difficulties in achieving WYSIWYG when browsers are free to render the structure differently.

WYSIWYG section still needs a reorganization.

[edit] WYSIWYM?

Dbolton has just added a bit on WYSIWYM editors. But does anybody know of one? As much as there ought to be a few out there, it seems silly to talk about what doesn't exist as if it does.

But I do wonder if the HTML Tags view in Mozilla Composer can sensibly be called WYSIWYM.... -- Smjg 11:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I guess it isn't really WYSIWYM insofar as the rendering of CSS positioning can interfere with the ability to see what you mean. But it's not far off. -- Smjg 14:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Text" vs "Code" editor?

I'd suggest that the term "text editor" for the one class of html editors implies less than what most of them do. Most references I've seen to the discussion between WYSIWYG html editors call the other class "code editors." And users are hand-coders, not hand-texters. HomeSite has certainly always been referred to this way. Just a suggestion. jwilkinson 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Try WebTide from http://webtide.lx.ro. It's a freeware HTML editor with tag completion and CSS comletion

[edit] Comparison of HTML editors

Shouldn't that section be ripped out of this article? It has its own article already, and since the content isn't somehow linked, it's a purely redundany copy & paste job across two articles. -- Northgrove 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry, I was confused by the "See also" link pointing to a "comparison", when it was just a redirect to this same article. Removing that link as it should absolutely not be there. -- Northgrove 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The comparison should have it's own page, and include more html editors like Adobe GoLive24.225.231.62 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree and the new Comparison of HTML editors article should be referenced in the Software comparisons category. --Goa103 09:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NVu Spell Check

NVu 1.0 (20050620) on Windows has its Edit -> Check Spelling item disabled. The only way I could find to check spelling was by turning on View > Show/Hide > Composition Toolbar and then using the Spell button there. A detailed review is at: http://thephantomwriters.com/free_content/d/h/nvu-software-review.shtml

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/t/m/Talk%7EHTML_editor_6384.html"