It's a bit like comparing apples to oranges in some cases we'd probably be better off with two separate comparison pages unless you can devise some way of writing comparison tables that make sense. For instance, syntax highlighting for a wysiwyg editor, or image format support for a text editor. I don't want to start the WYSIWYG vs handcode war here, but some of the non-WYSIWYG editors like HomeSite, etc are far more than just text editors, so why not include them here? jwilkinson 21:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Reply That's a good point, but I fear that too many comparison categories would be inapplicable.

Since this page is ' Comparison of HTML editors' not 'Comparison of WYSIWYG HTML editors' and many html editors are *not* WYSIWYG, then why is this comparison page not including them? This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been rated as List-Class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Computing Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing Template:WikiProject Computing Computing articles If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history for its talk page, see here. The original page is now a redirect to this page. Its contents were merged into Comparison of HTML editors.

The discussion was closed on 30 December 2013 with a consensus to merge.

Comparison of early HTML editors was nominated for deletion.

Download pagebreeze