Talk:HTML editor
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)
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.
- 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:
- 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
- Pages can be displayed in many different forms and configurations:
- 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
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.
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)
"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
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 its 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)
- 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.Dogru144 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you aware that this used to be a seperate article, but the consensus was to merge it into here? -Fadookie Talk 11:24, 20 January 2007 (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.Dogru144 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
issue of memory needed for programs
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)
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
The software screenshots
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)
Remove external links to editors
I'm no moderator but I propose that the links to online editors go either to the List of HTML editors with no bold letters! <-BTW, that ones already there.) or be removed. May I?
Recent re-write
I notice that large parts of this article have been rewritten earlier today by Oicumayberight. I'm concerned about the repetition in the paragraph under the heading 'Criticism of WYSIWYG editors'. It seems to say the same thing three times with ever more whacky examples used for emphasis. Is this the three-times repetition trick I heard somewhere that politicians' speech-writers use for rousing an audience, or is there something in there that I'm missing? Nigelj 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's because in the original article (not titled as "criticism"), there were 3 examples in which unfair criticism of WYSIWYG editors should have been placed elsewhere:
- Negligence
- Inexperience
- Excessiveness
- All three of these are examples of bad, web design, not bad software technology. I figure all three needed unique rebutting. The whole section read like "WYSIWYG editing is obsolete, so don't consider using it". Since this is a common practice amongst left-brain types, I decided to make the section about why this common criticism is unfair instead of letting the unfair criticism live un-rebutted. I would be fine with deleting the unfair criticism and moving the whole section to the talk page. Oicumayberight 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I may be out of touch with graphic designers' tools (I spend most of my days writing OO web software these days), but can we have an example of, or an explanation of, what 'Object Editors' are? I've never heard of them as discussed here and can't work it out from what's written. On the same score, what are 'Pallets'? Are these dialog boxes? Maybe another name for panels within some product's main window? Again it's just not a GUI term I'm familiar with, and with no illustration or example of what we're talking about I'm not clear what to visualise. (I have been using, writing and designing GUI user interfaces for some years, so I'm not completely ignorant in this area) Nigelj 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Palette window to be more specific. I linked the confusing terms. Designers use pallet to distinguish from the Dialog boxes that are cumbersome to open and close and specify the type of windows.
- Ahh, it's an Apple Mac thing. --Nigelj 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- More like a graphic designer thing, regardless of platform. The example showed Adobe systems software, which is Microsoft windows and Unix compatible, often before it's made Mac compatible. Oicumayberight 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh, it's an Apple Mac thing. --Nigelj 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- HTML Object editor is an emerging term to describe the function rather than format of editing HTML objects. I used it for lack of a better word to describe the state between full text editing and WYSIWYG. I included this because the article's dichotomy of only two modes of HTML editing (text or WYSIWYG) was false. Oicumayberight 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your link to a blog about storing software objects in a MySql database, and the WP article on software objects don't give me any confidence in all this: neither have anything to do with editing HTML as if it were an object-oriented markup language, which is what I think you have written about. Do you have any examples or references for this? --Nigelj 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- The link was just one of many to prove that it's an emerging term. Here's more [1] [2] [3]. You don't need to read through them all to determine that it's an emerging term. However, if you know of a better term to describe HTML objects and the practice of editing them in neither a WYSIWYG or full text mode, feel free to replace the term. Oicumayberight 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Lastly, I'm worried about the bullet points in the 'Criticism of WYSIWYG editors' section now. It seems to read, "Some people say this criticism, but they're wrong, wrong, wrong for all the following reasons..." over and over again. It reads more like a "how to win an argument against people who criticise your editor" guide. If that's a balanced NPOV view, then the subheading is now certainly wrong as there are no criticisms left.
It certainly needs to be made clear again that web pages are used differently by different users, and that that is not just due to some kind of browser-inconsistency bug! Search engines, screen scrapers, portable devices, low-bandwidth clients, small screens, the visually impaired, screen readers etc are all legitimate consumers of our HTML content, and HTML editors have to allow for this.
I was tempted just to revert the whole set of edits, but I'll leave it a while to see what other editors think. --Nigelj 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are criticisms left, just not left unrebutted. I would be fine with deleting the rebuttals as long as the unfair criticisms are deleted with it. Oicumayberight 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need to get partisan about this! It's not a case of whether a criticism is "fair", but whether it is valid, current and documented elsewhere. Similarly with the established benefits. As an encyclopedia we just try to reflect and report what is known and documented elsewhere. --Nigelj 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It's shouldn't be a biased article. If I thought the criticism was valid criticism of WYSIWYG technology, I wouldn't have posted the rebuttal. As I said, the criticism is misdirected. A tool shouldn't be criticized for misuse, especially when the misuse was possible without the technology. If you can't blame murder on guns, we shouldn't blame poor web design on web development software technology. Those are valid criticisms of web design practices, just not of WYSIWYG technology. Direct the criticism where it belongs. Oicumayberight 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need to get partisan about this! It's not a case of whether a criticism is "fair", but whether it is valid, current and documented elsewhere. Similarly with the established benefits. As an encyclopedia we just try to reflect and report what is known and documented elsewhere. --Nigelj 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)