Talk:HTML editor

message: 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)
thread_title: FrontPage's code mangling

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WYSIWYM? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Text" vs "Code" editor? 

message: Should not the chart include the amount of memory needed to run and store the program?  This can be a large amount and so is not inconsequential.Dogru144 21:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: issue of memory needed for programs

message: While it's nice with open source tools, I'm unsure if the focus should be on these three editors. Perhaps Amaya for the W3C curiosity (although I can't say I've heard many actually using it), but otherwise, isn't both Dreamweaver and even FrontPage more used than the others? Quanta Plus has a prominent screenshot but isn't even listed in the comparison! I thought DW was among the most used editors on the web, and any web designer is probably aware of FrontPage + its FrontPage web extensions. -- Northgrove 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The software screenshots 

message: I don't edit Wikipedia that much, so if this is just wasting space, I apologize.  It seemed like there was conflict over what should be in this article though, so I thought I should explain my edits.  Feel free to disagree or question.
*I removed "So called".  There wasn't a need for it, and it was derisive.
*I removed two of the images for WYSIWYG.  It seemed cluttered to have a ton of images making the same point.  I also added the Macromedia Homesite screenshot on Wikipedia.  However, the screen is low quality.  There should be better screenshot of a text editor and a screenshot of an "object editor".  The article mentions some Adobe software, but the only screens already on Wikipedia were not of an object editing mode.
*I removed actually.  Wasn't needed and seemed unproffesional.
*I replaced the criticisms section with a paragraph explaining the problems of WYSIWYG editing.  The criticisms section before made it sound like there was some great divide between text and WYSIWYG editing.  This does not reflect reality.  Many people use both, and many editors have both modes available.  I also felt that the "Problems achieving . . . " section addressed most of the criticisms very well.
*I added three sources.  This is probably more than necessary.  The first source deals with CSS support.  The second source deals with different displays.  It talks about how web designers should be careful with WYSIWYG and test for many platforms.  The third source backs up proffesional use of text editors.Altarbo 08:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 15 Edits 

message: The meaning of this table is unclear. Does operating system support mean that the software is compatible, or that tech support is still provided. If it means that the software is (or isn't) compatible, are we only concerned with the latest version? What exactly does "dropped" mean? Perhaps a legend would clear things up. Oicumayberight 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What does operating system support mean?

message: I visited this wikipedia topic in the hope of finding a pointer to some tools for stream editing of HTML, just as sed can be used as a stream editor for plain text, or xml-sed can be used to stream edit valid XML. Since HTML often isn't valid XML, the xml-coreutils can't be used, and I was hoping to find mention of something similar for HTML. Lukekendall (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stream editing of HTML? 

message: It is absent. What was the first real HTML editor? CoffeeCup Software says they made the first one.. --85.102.127.183 (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first HTML editor was also the first web browser and web server: WorldWideWeb, an application running on Tim Berners-Lee's NeXT desktop.—Chowbok ☠ 20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The image :File:Macromedia HomeSite.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Macromedia HomeSite.png

message: The section Online editors starts by saying "There are many online WYSIWYG HTML editors; some of them are listed here:".  There are then 7 wikilinks to articles on editors.  I saw that after that there were then 4 external links to webpages on other editors, including one recently added by an IP editor.  I removed those 5, with the edit summary: "Remove those not sufficiently notable to have had Wikipedia articles written about them".  The IP has now added them back.  Does the community feel that such a list should include products which do not have Wikipedia articles?  If they should be included then of course WP:EL would say that there shouldn't be external links within the article body text, so they ought to be plain text entries with references to the external websites. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online editors 

message: Substituted at 19:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment