Talk:List of HTML editors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has a nomenclature problem. A WYSIWYG page layout or site design program is not, technically, an "HTML editor" since that class of software is generally incapable of actually editing existing HTML code (it can generate HTML by exporting a proprietary format to HTML format, but generally can't open and edit an existing document). While HTML can be edited with any plain text editor, text editors are not really HTML editors since they lack tools specifically geared toward the handling of code (although there are notable exceptions). Word processors are also not HTML editors, often having more in common with WYSIWYG products. So...either this list should be pared down extensively, or we need to question its purpose and value. What is the purpose of this list, and is it worth keeping? Or should it be retitled? Canonblack 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Added HotDog (note the capitalisation) to the Text/HTML editors section. At some time I'll flesh out the stub with some details. Wont be too hard used to work on it. --goon 10:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Combined: all the Composer derivitives in 1 or 2 lines. I understand that the full-time developer for NVU has changed jobs, that the code has been released to an active open source community, but that it's now required to have another name again which is Kompozer. I'm no exepert but it looks like Seamonkey Composer is still going.

could soneone make a table of

• .1 General information
• .2 Operating system support
• .3 Editor features
• .4 Web technology support
• .5 Image format support

jsut a suggestion 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of the list, I believe, is to list the articles about relevant software that exist within Wikipedia. The comparison you are asking for would be a "Comparison" article such as has already been proposed within the HTML editors article. It would not be this article, which serves a different purpose. Canonblack 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess is that the typical reader has something to write or edit a web page about; that's their interest. They might need warning about the editors that write bad code or make it hard to continue the learning curve, just as they might be interested in ones that have good templates or good instructions. If anyone has the patience to write a comparison table I'm happy to let them have an Adobe Pagemill 3 for WindowsVeganline 09:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 With articles? 2 hasn't nvu been discontinued? 3 Fair use rationale for Image:TopStyle Logo.png 4 Fair use rationale for Image:EditPlus Screenshot.png

[edit] With articles?

The para at the top of the list says this is a list of editors "with articles", yet about half of the entries are redlined. Should the redline entries be removed, or should the para be rewritten? [EDIT] I'm just going to remove them, and if that's a bad thing, we can revert the change. [EDIT] I've also removed the section, "Web-based editors", because all of the links therein were redlined. Canonblack 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

These changes are very drastic and I don't like them myself. The page should really be a full list of HTML editors and quite a few have been added in recent weeks. A red-lined link should prompt somebody to write an article about it, it should not be deleted just because of that. As it happens the HTML editors page is so limited in its scope and biased towards just a few editors (all WYSIWYG) so is not a replacement. Such a change should certainly have been done through the normal Wikipedia discussion process, not just foisted on us like this. And Canonblack are you the same chap as 12.22.250.4 who actually did most of the changes? Dsergeant 06:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You are completely missing my point. The opening paragraph states that this is a list of editors with articles in Wikipedia; if there is an editor in the list that is a redlink, then it doesn't have an article in Wikipedia. Therefore, it should be removed. I didn't create the list. If it's the consensus that this should be a list of all editors that exist or have ever existed, then why does the opening paragraph state that this is a list of editors with articles in Wikipedia? I note that someone (probably you) has gone in and replaced several of the redlinked editors. As for "foisting" anything on you, I was making a bold change as invited by the Wikipedia user guidelines in accordance with making the list fall into what appeared to be its stated purpose. If you disagree, then revert the edits. I did offer the idea openly as you can plainly see above. I didn't "foist" anything on anyone. And the HTML Editors article isn't meant to be a replacement for this. This list is meant to augment that article, and its content was broken off from it to shorten the original article's length. Canonblack 19:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No I had not misunderstood your point. But I would suggest that instead of removing all the redlinked articles you changed the opening paragraph to remove 'with articles in Wikipedia'. It SHOULD be a fairly comprehensive list of HTML editors and those without current WP articles should have them added later, just like everything else on WK works. No it wasn't me who added those extra ones, the ones I added recently already had articles or I wrote them myself so they were already blue links. I am surprised nobody else has commented on this drastic change.Dsergeant 06:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

agreeVeganline 09:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hasn't nvu been discontinued?

I thought it had....--TiagoTiago 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Officially not, though there has been no development for around 2 years. KompoZer is an interim bug release version and is certainly current. But being discontinued is no reason to remove it from WP. Dsergeant 07:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TopStyle Logo.png

Image:TopStyle Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EditPlus Screenshot.png

Image:EditPlus Screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)