Talk:Comparison of HTML editors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Secure FTP

I would love 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] link for syntax

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

[edit] PHP Support

Should I add a column for PHP support under the 'Web technology support' section? Some editors don't highlight syntax for that language.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] link for syntax

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