I need a HTML WYSIWYG editor.

[_LOBO_]

Hi,

Im trying to find a free or/and opensource HTML WYSIWYG file editor something that works fine maybe that one that you use ;) .

Thank you for post any comments or that rare perl on the net.

_Lobo_

ps: before my post I do my homework and I search on google/sorceforge but I allready download a lot of applications and they don't work that is why Im asking you! wich is the best opensource/free editor :D

[poiuy]

Don't know if you tried this but some one, some where in one of these forums a while back gave this recommendation http://www.nvu.com/ Open source & free.

I have only got as far as downloading it, installing it and play around with it for about 20 minutes. It looks like a pretty good program for the price.

As long as the editor lets you into the source, like this one does, you can pretty much do anything you want but adding your own code (depending on server restrictions if your site is hosted elsewhere)

[_LOBO_]

poiuy: thank you for the link but the software is only for linux and I need something for WIndows

[the tree]

I really wouldn't recomend using WYSIWYG editors, as far as I know the only one that produces standard compliant code is Amaya (http://w3.org/Amaya) which is more fustrating to use than a ladder that only has a rung every 5'.
Plenty of non-WYSIWYG editors give you a helping hand and I would certainly recomend HTML Kit (http://chami.com/html-kit/).

[poiuy]

Why not download the Windows version?

Quote:
Download Nvu

Nvu is available for download for a variety of Linux distributions including Linspire 5.0, SuSE Linux 9.2, Mandrake Linux 10.0, Fedora Core 2 and 3, Debian Linux (sid) and MEPIS linux. If you are using Mac OSX or Windows, you can download Nvu for Windows and Nvu for Mac from the links below.

They have a full install and a zip file for Windows

[WASPDigital]

I don't know if this helps but I am currently using Microsoft Frontpage 2000 and it's pretty good. It came on my pc already so I don't know about the price.

[the tree]

I don't know if this helps but I am currently using Microsoft Frontpage 2000 and it's pretty good.FrontPage is a joke, the type of code that it outputs is horrific. It produces bulky, inefficient and inaccessable websites. I would almost always say that no website at all is better than one made with Microsoft Front Page.

[WASPDigital]

Well, yes, it does have that problem. But I like the fact that you can go behind the scenes and tidy it up. I have actually hosted a page built with frontpage (sorry) on-line at http://www.projectbaiji.co.nr and it was only built with FrontPage and PhotoDraw. You do have a point there about the code, but I think it does quite well on the whole.

[the tree]

Wow, that's pretty amazing for FrontPage. It could still be half the size but it's nothing like the sacks of invalid HTML and pointless Javascript I've seen spurted out of Front Page before.
I guess I stand corrected, despite still being invalid and quite bulky it's code apparently can be around the quality of Dreamweaver's although that's still far from quality.

I still stand by avoiding WYSIWYGs in general.

[poiuy]

Oh man an anti-Frontpage debate. Let me do something more productive like put my weiner in a meat grinder!!!!

SO WHAT! IE is still the dominant browser (as much as I hate that) and OMG Frontpage and IE are BOTH made by Microsoft. So what if your website downloads a split second faster. 90+% of the people out there will still see a frontpage site just as fast.

I do believe you should use Frontpage as a stepping stone to learning the real web. Especially since you can't notice the difference on hi-speed DSL or any other high speed access.

Any who Frontpage isn't open source or "free". Can we get back to the subject?? Did nvu work for you???

[WASPDigital]

To be honest I havent the paitence to download it.

[Frets]

Amaya http://www.w3.org/Amaya/

Composer is part of the netscape family of tools and is also a good free alternative.
http://www.mozilla.org/editor/

[Sanim]

Dreamweaver MX 2004 (http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver) is a great editor, though it can sometimes "spit out bad code" like tables. A LOT better than Frontpage, though.

[_LOBO_]

Thank you for all those links!

[pratik_learner]

Hi but I seriously doubt if there are any uses of using a WYSIWYG editor.
The many self-claimed advantages of WYSIWYG editors is that they allow anybody ( hyperbole perhaps?) to make web-pages. Well this may be true but then when there are exceptional scenarios one resorts to using some cut-and-paste CSS and JAvaScript. All to hamper self-discovery and learning.
If one really was short on time then he should have rather used a single template and then add content to it. That would be the answer. But as further adventures in web design are concerned it is very much trial-and-error and so it helfpul if one writes his own code.

Without this it is difficult(for non-HTML designers) to validate code and ensure cross-browser compatibilty. Besides worthy WYSIWYG editors are pretty expensive and Nvu wasn't such a good competitor ( use of tables for site layout made me uninstall the app)

[spufi]

Oh man an anti-Frontpage debate. Let me do something more productive like put my weiner in a meat grinder!!!!

SO WHAT! IE is still the dominant browser (as much as I hate that) and OMG Frontpage and IE are BOTH made by Microsoft. So what if your website downloads a split second faster. 90+% of the people out there will still see a frontpage site just as fast.

I do believe you should use Frontpage as a stepping stone to learning the real web. Especially since you can't notice the difference on hi-speed DSL or any other high speed access.

Any who Frontpage isn't open source or "free". Can we get back to the subject?? Did nvu work for you???

Um, no. I would recommend a decent text editor as a stepping stone where the user actually learns what all of the tags are and how to use them properly. Once they actually know how to create a page, I would then work them towards using the more overpriced toys. There are a number of web designers who if reduced down to using Notepad would be screwed in trying to make a page because they never really learned how and they just used Front Page and the like as a crutch. Also note that there are still a very large number of dial-up users out there. The mindset of "who cares if I have some extra crappy code in there" isn't the right one to have.

Also note that web sites done in FrontPage can have just as good of code as somebody making a page by hand coding. If the designer knows what they are doing, there is no reason for a web page to have bad code in it regardless of the tool used to create the page.

[pratik_learner]

I totally agree with your views Also writing code on your own can have lots of benefits. Most of the WYSIWYG editors use inline style attributes which are independant for each DIV element. Conversely usage of an external stylesheet can : 1 Reduce Upload Time, 2. Save Web Space, 3. Lower Bandwidth Consumption, 4.Increase web-page loading speed
Besides one can ensure only through traditional coding methods that one's code is valid according to W3C Specifications. But however for low-profile, personal sites it is better off 'buying' :D your way out by using pricey WYSIWYG editors.

[BeachSide]

Um, no. I would recommend a decent text editor as a stepping stone where the user actually learns what all of the tags are and how to use them properly. Once they actually know how to create a page, I would then work them towards using the more overpriced toys. There are a number of web designers who if reduced down to using Notepad would be screwed in trying to make a page because they never really learned how and they just used Front Page and the like as a crutch. Also note that there are still a very large number of dial-up users out there. The mindset of "who cares if I have some extra crappy code in there" isn't the right one to have.

Also note that web sites done in FrontPage can have just as good of code as somebody making a page by hand coding. If the designer knows what they are doing, there is no reason for a web page to have bad code in it regardless of the tool used to create the page.
AH HAH Now this is the best take on using wysiwyg editors that I have seen lately! I could not agree with you more... learn the structure and tags first! Learn why they do what they do, how to implement them then, as you said if you are in a place where you are forced to use something such as notepad you will have no trouble in doing so.

Well said! ;)

[Jeff Mott]

Dreamweaver MX 2004 is a great editor, though it can sometimes "spit out bad code" like tables. A LOT better than Frontpage, though.FrontPage has made some great improvements in the last couple years. Here is an old thread that was a DW vs. FP debate. In there I had a brief comparison of the code each generated.

http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23718&highlight=frontpage

[poiuy]

OK this is way off the original thread ? BUT

Yes you're right learning what everything does is great.

However, if your ultimate goal is to create a website why walk when you can run. Why waste time typing everything out when a couple click of a mouse will do it for you???

If you are going to college for Interent degrees in computer science you need to know how to code from scratch. Maybe you just want to feel warm and fuzzy inside that you created a page from scratch, if so, by all means use notepad.

Either way you're going to have to learn what everything does if you really want an advanced website if you use an editor but why waste time typing <html> </html> <form> </form> etc. when learning PHP, SQL, ASP.NET etc. would be a better way to spend your time .

If you were stuck in a company with only Notepad and your that smart to write total webpages from scratch you should also be smart enough to show them how much money they'd save if they got a better program. But then again you're computer probably wouldn't run properly with all the dust blowing around in that cave.

[Jeff Mott]

However, if your ultimate goal is to create a website why walk when you can run. Why waste time typing everything out when a couple click of a mouse will do it for you???It depends on if you use HTML in the way it was meant to be used (document structure) or if you're using HTML for a visual layout. If you're doing the former then I personally find WYSIWYG editors to be more of a hindrance than helpful.

[TurnkeyWebsites]

Um, no. I would recommend a decent text editor as a stepping stone where the user actually learns what all of the tags are and how to use them properly. Once they actually know how to create a page, I would then work them towards using the more overpriced toys. There are a number of web designers who if reduced down to using Notepad would be screwed in trying to make a page because they never really learned how and they just used Front Page and the like as a crutch. Also note that there are still a very large number of dial-up users out there. The mindset of "who cares if I have some extra crappy code in there" isn't the right one to have.

Also note that web sites done in FrontPage can have just as good of code as somebody making a page by hand coding. If the designer knows what they are doing, there is no reason for a web page to have bad code in it regardless of the tool used to create the page.
Use Textpad the very best in my opinion espically for a newbie trying to learn

[_LOBO_]

Thank you all for your comments.
TurnkeyWebsites : Im trying to find a WYSIWYG editor not just a editor. (notepad++ is the best editor hehehe )

[spufi]

OK this is way off the original thread ? BUT

Yes you're right learning what everything does is great.

However, if your ultimate goal is to create a website why walk when you can run. Why waste time typing everything out when a couple click of a mouse will do it for you???

If you are going to college for Interent degrees in computer science you need to know how to code from scratch. Maybe you just want to feel warm and fuzzy inside that you created a page from scratch, if so, by all means use notepad.

Either way you're going to have to learn what everything does if you really want an advanced website if you use an editor but why waste time typing <html> </html> <form> </form> etc. when learning PHP, SQL, ASP.NET etc. would be a better way to spend your time .

If you were stuck in a company with only Notepad and your that smart to write total webpages from scratch you should also be smart enough to show them how much money they'd save if they got a better program. But then again you're computer probably wouldn't run properly with all the dust blowing around in that cave.

Here's a real world example. When I went to get trained in programming for a company, they put me through a 13 week program. You want to know how many weeks we used various tools to help us be quicker? One, and that was after our grades were determined. After we saw the tools we asked why we hadn't seen them sooner. They said they wanted to make sure that regardless of what client we were at we would be able to function in that environment. Same thing applies here.

And by the way, I don't spend time writing <html> and the like. It's called a template. Any semi-decent text-editor allows you to make one. Add in PHP includes and there is very little I have to add to a page beyond pure content.

Although I am missing the link, I saw where one person emtioned that the comapny he works for doesn't use WYSIWYG editors. No, they don't use Notepad. He describe what they do there and if somebody mentioned using FrontPage, Dreamweaver they would get laughed at.

Out of WYSIWYG editors, go with Dreamweaver. HTML-KIT is good for being free. TextPad is decent, but I liked EditPlus a lot better. I like PHPEdit even more though. :)

[_LOBO_]

there is a WYSIWYG CSS editor ? I mean I have Dreamweaver MX 2004 but if I want to remplace all my tables for CSS on the edir looks horryble but on the browser all is just fine. there is any Editor that support CSS foe working with layout ?