| "Would it be a complicated app? Yes. Would it require a lot of programming? Yes. Would it immediately bring money? No. So currently it's probably won't be a good idea to work on it." Consider that web browsers essentially do the reverse of HTML editors such as Dreamweaver. Moreover, all current web browsers do a much better job at rendering web pages from HTML than do WYSIWYG editors do at turning text into HTML. I don't think many appreciate how sophisticated web browsers are these days. Now consider that browsers such as Firefox and Chromium are open source, their code could be used to develop HTML editors. The question I keep asking is why aren't there a plethora of HTML editors out there that harness the algorithms these browsers already use for their own development. As you suggest, producing a good HTML editor is very hard work, if it weren't then there'd be many good editors out there but there aren't. Take wordprocessors with a 'save as HTML' option and one will find the code they produde ranges from almost unusable to abominable. Same goes for email editors that produce HTML-formatted emails. For example, Thunderbird has about the worst HTML editor around, it's brain-dead and full of bugs, and it's been like that for decades. It's as if those at Mozilla are terrified to touch it for fear that they'll kill it altogether. Now keep in mind that Thunderbird actually uses the Firefox engine so what's going on here? With Thunderbird is the browser code completely divorced from its email editor? OK, you may well say that's just how is it with Thunderbird, the editor evolved separately to its rendering engine. I'll then say take a good look at BlueGriffon which is quite an excellent HTML editor based on Firefox (despite the fact that it's awkward to use and hasn't been updated in ages). How come its developer can produce good HTML whereas Thunderbird's developers don't seem to have a clue? Also, how relevant to this discussion is the fact that BlueGriffon's development has ceased: http://bluegriffon.org/. What's the actual reason for the developer ceasing development (there's likely more than he's stating on his webpage)? Right, perhaps somewhere in all that comment lies the path to actual truth of the matter—that is, how difficult it is to actually make a decent HTML editor? I've been on the lookout for a good open-source HTML editor for years and I've yet to see a decent discussion, analysis or exposé of the subject. Why not? It's still impossible to sort out whether the demand for a decent HTML editor just isn't there or whether it's a too bigger project and not worth the effort. I wish those who are truly in the know would put this matter to rest. Many of us who don't wish to delve deep into web browser/editor code would love some answers. |