Talk:HTML editor: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:55, 18 May 2009

Latest revision as of 15:44, 2 February 2024

(9 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Computingbanner shell|softwareclass=yes}}Start|

{{WikiProject InternetComputing|software=yes|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Internet|importance=Low}}

}}

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.

----

==FrontPage's code mangling==

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

== Bias re WYSIWYG ==

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

== 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? [[User:Kate|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;[[User:Kate|Kate]] | [[User talk:Kate|Talk]] 03:41, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Line 71 ⟶ 66:

: I agree and the new [[Comparison of HTML editors]] article should be referenced in the [[:Category:Software comparisons|Software comparisons]] category. --[[User:Goa103|Goa103]] 09:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, do separate and create a new article, on ''Comparison of HTML editors.'' No, do not put it into a software comparisons category. The public has evolved. It is not too challenging to separate these software articles into different types of software.[[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Are you aware that this [[Talk:Comparison_of_HTML_editors|used to be a seperate article]], but the consensus was to merge it into here? -'''[[User:Fadookie|Fadookie]]''' ^{[[User talk:Fadookie|Talk]]} 11:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

talk:Fadookie|Talk]]</sup> 11:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:::This should be removed as Wikipedia is not a review site, and the list is not full. Where is HTMLPad, heck where is the old Hot Dog Pro? (It is an HTML editor still available). No, kill this portion. [[User:Guroadrunner|Guroadrunner]] 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::::There are many comparisons on Wikipedia. Even if sometimes controversial, they are extremely useful, merging several points of view in a synthetic way. Add HTMLPad and Hot Dog Pro if you have info on them.

Line 83 ⟶ 77:

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

==Confusion re Dynamic Web page==

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. Unsigned October 2006

== The software screenshots ==

Line 161 ⟶ 158:

==What does operating system support mean?==

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. [[User:Oicumayberight|Oicumayberight]] 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

== Stream editing of HTML? ==

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. [[User:Lukekendall|Lukekendall]] ([[User talk:Lukekendall|talk]]) 13:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

== History ==

It is absent. What was the first real HTML editor? [[CoffeeCup Software]] says they made the first one.. --[[Special:Contributions/85.102.127.183|85.102.127.183]] ([[User talk:85.102.127.183|talk]]) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:The first HTML editor was also the first web browser and web server: WorldWideWeb, an application running on Tim Berners-Lee's NeXT desktop.&mdash;[[User:Chowbok|<span style="background:black; color:white; font-weight: bold;">Chowbok</span>]] [[User talk:Chowbok|<span style="color:black;">☠</span>]] 20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

==Image copyright problem with File:Macromedia HomeSite.png==

Line 174 ⟶ 176:

This is an automated notice by [[User:FairuseBot|FairuseBot]]. For assistance on the image use policy, see [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]. --22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

== Online editors ==

The section [[HTML editor#Online editors|Online editors]] starts by saying "There are many online WYSIWYG HTML editors; some of them are listed here:". There are then 7 [[WP:wikilinks|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. --[[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

==Assessment comment==

{{Substituted comment|length=6379|lastedit=20070513131542|comment=This page contains my comments on the [[HTML editor#Criticisms of WYSIWYG editors|Criticism]] section of the [[HTML editor]] article and the original article with hyperlinks to my comments in bracketed superscript.[[User:Altarbo|Altarbo]] 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{nw=}}{{nw=}}[[Html editor#Criticisms of WYSIWYG editors|Criticisms of WYSIWYG editors]]{{nw=}}{{nw=}}

WYSIWYG editors facilitate the generation of web pages by people with little experience or knowledge of HTML. Experienced hand coders are prone to criticize the editing technology for the neglectful editing habits of the person editing, analogous to faulting automobile technology for reckless driving.^{'''[ [[#NPOV|NPOV]] ]'''} Because WYSIWYG editors make it easy to build web pages, the editing technology is often faulted for the inexperience of the person editing, analogous to faulting digital cameras for amateur photography.^{'''[ [[#NPOV|NPOV]] ]'''} Because WYSIWYG editors make complex visual layouts easier to create, the editing technology is often faulted for problems due to complexity of the layout. ^{'''[ [[#NPOV|NPOV]] ]'''}

WYSIWYG editors are sometimes criticized for the following reasons:

*Depending on the version, WYSIWYG may not automatically generate the most efficient HTML and CSS code. However the code can be edited or generated by hand in WYSIWYG editors. Although third-party optimizers offer solutions to problems from automatically generated code, many of them simply remove extra spaces, rather than looking into the code to remove unneeded structures like [[compiler]]s do. Unless the optimizer operates as a plug-in for the editor, it cannot take the web author's optimal preferences into account when content is created, resulting in mis-optimized code.^{'''[ This section is fine. ]'''}

*WYSIWYG editors make it easier to create layouts with HTML tables as an alternative to or combined with CSS.^{'''[ [[#misrepresentation|misrepresentation]] ]'''} This is not a criticism of WYSIWYG editors as much as it is a criticism of HTML tables. Table based layouts are considered less efficient to download than CSS. Tables add complexity and obfuscates the documents' structures, resulting in code that is more difficult to maintain in text editing modes than CSS. WYSIWYG editors allow for table-free layouts and CSS as well as text editors allow for HTML tables. ^{'''[ [[#Bullet three|Bullet three]] ]'''}

*Users may be disappointed that the same page is rendered differently in different browsers, on various screen sizes, and on varying [[computer monitor|monitor setting]]s. This criticism is also misplaced. With the exception of [[Microsoft FrontPage]], WYSIWYG editors mainly use [[W3C|W3C standard]] code.^{'''[ [[#irrelevant note|irrelevant]] ]'''} There are many factors outside of the page designer's control that can affect this&mdash;the CSS specification and modern browsers even allow users to override a page author's settings. The inconsistent browser display problem is due to inconsistent web browser technology, not WYSIWYG editing technology. ^{'''[ [[#misleading|misleading]] ]'''}''see [[HTML editor#Difficulties in achieving WYSIWYG|Difficulties in achieving WYSIWYG]] below.

*Documents edited visually without regard to semantic structure can be incomprehensible to search engines, audio and text-only browsers. This is also a criticism of editing habits, not WYSIWYG editing technology. Search engines and browser technology may [[ubicomp|adapt to the habits of people]] as well as people will adapt to machines. Artificial intelligence may eventually enable machines to recognize and correct even the rarest problems in both editing and browsing.^{'''[ [[#OR|OR]] ]''' '''[ [[#Bullet three|Bullet Three]] ]''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title{{nw=}}HTML_editor&oldid{{nw=}}127374991#Criticisms_of_WYSIWYG_editors]}

{{nw=}}{{nw=}}Notes{{nw=}}{{nw=}}

{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}NPOV{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}

These analogies are very NPOV. <br>

WYSIWYG:Text::Car:Horse? <br>

WYSIWYG:Text::Digital Camera:Flash Photography?</pre> <br>

These metaphors either ignore the existance of Text Editors or casually deride them. Digital photography and automobiles offer significant advantages over previous technologies. A WYSIWYG editor offers almost no advantage to a user capable of writing their own HTML. It also comes with tons of disadvantages.[[User:Altarbo|Altarbo]] 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}<div id{{nw=}}"misrepresentation">Misrepresentation</div>{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}

WYSIWYG editors give the user the impression that what they see is what their visitors will get. This is especially untrue with tables and gives users the impression that they can use tables for visual/layout purposes, when in reality, tables are displayed differently across browsers and relying on tables (instead of CSS) will create a document that looks radically different to different visitors.[[User:Altarbo|Altarbo]] 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}Bullet three{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}

The problems in the fourth and second bullet are simply facets of the problem from the third.[[User:Altarbo|Altarbo]] 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}<div id{{nw=}}"irrelevant note">Irrelevant</div>{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}

The web was designed to be viewable on many different devices. The minimum requirments that Tim Berners Lee included with his original paper on the World Wide Web included a 30x80 pixel black and white display. W3C standards have nothing to do with a page displaying a static constant image. They involve the opposite.[[User:Altarbo|Altarbo]] 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Edit: It was 24x80.<ref>{{cite paper

| author = Tim Berners-Lee

| title = Information Management Proposal

| date = March 1989, May 1990}}</ref>[[User:Altarbo|Altarbo]] 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}Misleading{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}

This is a misleading statement. Consistent web browser technology is not going to happen any time soon. A black and white PDA, a cell phone, a standard desktop computer, and a laptop are very different platforms. Cell phones have a portrait oriented small screen, a PDA can have a black and white screen , no audio, and a landscape oriented screen; and a desktop computer can output pure audio.[[User:Altarbo|Altarbo]] 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}OR{{nw=}}{{nw=}}{{nw=}}

This goes beyond OR. This is not cited and it is unfounded speculation.[[User:Altarbo|Altarbo]] 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)}}

Substituted at 19:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}