Talk:Comparison of HTML editors

Comparison of early HTML editorsComparison of early HTML editors was merged into this article. The discussion was closed on 30 December 2013 with a consensus to merge. The original page is now a redirect to this article. Its history now serves to provide attribution for the content in this article, and it must not be deleted as long as this article exists.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 25 April 2026, see discussion.
Keep, May 14, 2006, see discussion.

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Markus Kaiser, "Mag's Big List of HTML Editors", c. 1998 (a web designer of that era published a list of tools and short feature descriptions on his own website; probably marginal as a WP:RS, but may be a starting point for finding information via archived links and author/publisher names)
"Development", Web Design Museum (identified as being a computer historian's project to catalogue 1991–2000s web design; has short articles listing specifications and links to documentation)

Secure FTP

I would like a column that indicates which products support SFTP for publishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.124.2 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Footnotes

I was just adding some things to this page and noticed that there are footnotes but their links go nowhere as if someonw deleted that information... [[User:Kiby145|:Kirby145:]] 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why only WYSIWYG editors on this page?

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?

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. For instance, syntax highlighting for a wysiwyg editor, or image format support for a text editor. 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. -Fadookie ^Talk 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the page here, I think you'd be surprised at how many of those comparison categories are quite applicable to an advanced code-based HTML/web editor like TopStyle or HomeSite. If it were a big problem, perhaps the article should divide into 2 large sections, one comparing WYSIWYG HTML editors to each other and the other comparing non-WYSIWYG HTML editors to each other... though I don't think that's really necessary. jwilkinson 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can figure out a way of writing comparison tables that make sense, go for it. -Fadookie ^Talk 09:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Comparison of text editors covers many programs that function as HTML text editors. -Fadookie ^Talk 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't cover them from a point of view concentrating on HTML work. Something like TopStyle or HomeSite is far more than a text editor and favorably compares to the WYSIWYG HTML editors in features. jwilkinson 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good compromise is treating all general-purpose text editors as a single option and pointing to the comparison of text editors, maybe expanding that page to include HTML-specific information, while text editors specifically focused on HTML should be treated as individual entries on this list. Verithrax 08:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Emacs

Is there any reason not to include GNU Emacs here? It is not WYSIWG but it has many functions useful for HTML editing (for example nXhtml) --Nopedia (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it ;) mabdul 0=* 20:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did Nopedia (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many text editors with functions useful for HTML editing. So what sense does it make to single this one out? Moreover, what is including any text editor here over and above repeating information on Comparison of text editors? Perhaps an even better question: In what way, exactly, does GNU Emacs support these web technologies and image formats? -- Smjg (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. I answer the easy part first, that about the images. It can show the images in the text buffer. It knows about image sizes. It also knows XHTML DTD and can validate it and do completion based on it. The latter is with the add-ons nXml/nXhtml. With nXhtml it knows about href links and can follow them, etc. Please see [1] or the corresponding file on Emacs Wiki.

There are also frame works for ruby, snippets for PHP etc. See [2].

There is an extensive frame work for java (jdee) which some people are currently working on to get it in good shape again for the new Emacs version.

There are interesting new approaches for javascript, like the parsing editor [3]. (There are other approaches to this too in CEDET for Emacs.)

Is not that enough? (There is more, of course.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopedia (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit frustrated. Despite this discussion someone just erased GNU Emacs from this page. I can't see any reason for that. Why waste time that way? Could you however did this please explain? --Nopedia (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nopedia. I don't make a habit of reading the talk pages for relatively uncontroversial articles before making relatively innocuous changes. It's probably safe to assume the vast majority of edits to Wikipedia are made this way. So please don't feel frustrated—you've done the right thing, sending me a message to ask me to explain, and now we can talk it out.

My reasoning for removing emacs was simple: I didn't see any compelling reason to list a general-purpose text editor in an article on purpose-built HTML editors, when the article already states plainly that many generic text editors have features to make editing HTML easier and links to a page comparing them. I was too brusque in my edit comment, and I'm sure my intent didn't come across well. Hopefully it is more clear now. —HorsePunchKid (talk) 2010-01-10 19:15:11Z

Hi, HorsePunchKid. I do not think the page is about "html only" editors. That would help no one. I think we should understand the criteria as "good html" editors. Don't you?--Nopedia (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HorsePunchKid that this article should be only about WYSIWYG editors. Otherwise many others should be included too, and it is hard to draw a line. Also List of HTML editors links to this article only for the WYSIWYG editors. Maybe one should rename this article and write a comparison of the rest too... --Danh (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be POV to have a thing for excluding GNU emacs. This was in the version of this article merely half a year ago. The title of this current article does not delineate or exclude certain kinds of HTML editors. Whether it is or isn't WYSIWYG is immaterial.Dogru144 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include general text editor that have extensions to support html editing, put it in a separate section with at least a few others -- notepad++ I think has html extensions, as well as vim, my mind goes blank here...but I really would rather see ones who's main focus is on web development (HTML,CSS, JS, etc) in their own collection and have text editors with support in another. But latex has a gui...can't remember the name, but it looks like it would have an html output and would be more likely to have WYSIWYG features than vim, emacs, etc. I'm not sure if it belongs here, and I wouldn't know where to put it. Anyway -- I got led here searching for editor like NVU and komposer and the ilk. I certainly don't see gnu or vim in the same category. Astara Athenea (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preview Pane

There should be a column for whether or not the editor has a preview pane. To users of front page or other legacy editors this is a important feature. Though personally i prefer VIM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.8 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The key comparison here is the convenience of being able to preview your work quickly and without back-and-forthing with your web browser. In some cases, like Dreamweaver starting sometime before CS5.5, it works in "real time" (but not really). I propose that this replaces the "page preview" column since, while both have the same result in mind (previewing your content), a button that opens the current file in a web browser is not only practically a standard in HTML editors, but also child's play in coding terms. Any further opinions? StigmaOfTruth (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

link for syntax

Dogru144 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHP Support

link for syntax

Dogru144 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screem

I was linked here by SCREEM's page, and Screem isn't on here. Can/should it be? 88.11.150.218 (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date

Would it be possible to add Date data to the version column? It is not possible to directly compare version numbers between different software to determine which one is newer. It could then be possible to add the 'discontinued' status into the version column instead of being part of the name. Rgb9000 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Dragonfly?

I don't think it's an HTML editor? It's more of a web inspector/debugger like Firebug and Safari's Web Inspector? Ufopedia (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At that moment you're right. But it is an alpha and they plan to expand the tool with many more features (some hints are already given on the dragonfly page!) mabdul 0=* 15:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OS

The table should show compatible operating systems.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xupid (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compatibility of operating systems is not germaine to the present site. Only matters of the editors are pertinent to this site. This site does address which operating systems the HTML editors work with. Dogru144 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SeaMonkey, CSS

A comparison site addresses improvements in SeaMonkey. It now does handle CSS. Please see this review site: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/05/06/25-wysiwyg-editors-reviewed/ --from Smashing Magazine, May 6, 2008. Dogru144 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image format support

What is the definition of an editor supporting a given image format?

Acceptance of the user's attempt to include an image in this format?
Ability to display the image within the editor?
Ability to convert, if necessary, to GIF, JPEG or PNG?
Something else entirely?

-- Smjg (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

write image (like svg!)? --mabdul 0=* 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if that's the definition - the table includes TIFF, which isn't normally used on the WWW, so why would any HTML editors generate image files in this format? -- Smjg (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FCKeditor

FCKeditor. Should this WYSIWYG HTML editor be in the table? There is also a branch of it being used for WYSIWYG wiki editing. Please see:

http://www.fckeditor.net
http://mediawiki.fckeditor.net
http://help.wikia.com/wiki/Help:New_editor
http://help.wikia.com/wiki/Help_talk:New_editor
mw:Extension:FCKeditor (by FCKeditor and Wikia)
mw:WYSIWYG editor - WYSIWYG editing and software for MediaWiki and some wiki farms. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleycode

Alleycode_HTML_Editor. Should this free WYSIWYG HTML editor be in the comparison tables? Please see: http://www.alleycode.com/ Alleycat812 (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC) feel free and be bold!mabdul 0=* 10:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PageBreeze

Should this free WYSIWYG HTML editor be in the comparison tables? Please see: http://www.pagebreeze.com/ Alleycat812 (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC) write first an article and then be bold to add it! mabdul 0=* 10:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needed: Indications of which HTML each editor supports

What isn't mentioned is which of the many specifications of HTML each editor supports, and whether or not it has any validation mechanism. This would be an ideal place to put such information.

HTML 3.2
HTML 4.0 (strict / transitional / frameset )
HTML 4.01  (strict / transitional / frameset )
ISO/IEC 15445:2000
HTML 5
XHTML 1.0  (strict / transitional / frameset )
XHTML 1.1  (strict / transitional / frameset )
XHTML 2.0  (strict / transitional / frameset )
XHTML 5

(20040302 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Good contributions!Dogru144 (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NetObjects Fusion?

How is NetObjects Fusion not in this list? Isn't it a WYSIWYG web editor?Dogru144 (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By nobody having added it, of course. (That said, in my view it's really just a desktop publisher that likes to think it's an HTML editor.) -- Smjg (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I've been curious about this issue.Dogru144 (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WYSIWYG

The "WYSIWYG" column has appeared since I last looked. Given that no HTML editor can be truly WYSIWYG for a variety of reasons, what are the criteria for a "Yes" in this column? -- Smjg (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations

AS most casual visitors may I came looking for a guide to find a HTML editor can we agree a nomination list ? Perhaps some entry criteria ? --Seanwong (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC) --Seanwong (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this article

This article must be deleted according to this discussion and result about the deletion of similar list like articles like this one. An aticle of deletion should be created here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editing Comparison of HTML editors. (Onle registered users can do this, so not me) --91.89.137.62 (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you at Talk:Comparison of text editors, that discussion only applies to that article: the rationale does not automatically apply here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Open Office

I noticed it still said that OpenOffice.org was by Sun Microsystems. Shouldn't that be changed to Oracle? Bradj47 02:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

although oracle bought sun, the application is still known as OOo --> see here. At the moment at least. mabdul 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-di support?

which of these are supporting bi-directionality? because dreamweaver is really bad at it--85.64.103.251 (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expression Web is now free

As the title says.... 188.222.184.114 (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Editor features' table is too wide

The 'Editor features' table is too wide to display correctly on my system; I'm using the latest Firefox, with the option "Allow pages to choose their own fonts instead of my selections" selected. Specifically, the rightmost column, 'Form Handler', fails to show on screen unless I take extraordinary measures, such as editing the page.

I discovered that changing the wikitable style from font size 90% down to 82% (but nothing larger, say 83%) would fix the problem for me. However, that text size is too small for easy reading even by normally-sighted persons, and I feel that perhaps the table is simply too wide overall. I inspected the headings, which are the widest elements in most columns, but we can't shorten them much without making them harder to understand.

So I have the following questions:

Could we format the table differently to convey the same information but in a narrower form? (E.g. by rotating the column headings 90% anti-clockwise, to become vertical.)
Why not drop the 'Form Handler' column, since we only have definite information for one of the editors listed?
Is there a Wikipedia formatting standard or style guide that governs minimum acceptable text sizes, keeping in mind the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards for web usability by all users, regardless of their physical abilities?
Similarly, is there a Wikipedia standard on maximum table widths? (We need to keep in mind that many readers now access Wikipedia primarily or only on tablets and smartphones, with very limited screen area.)

yoyo (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which Editors run in Java/Javascript/zero-install/non-admin install

The tables could helpfully document which editors are build/run in Java (JRE), Javascript, or are otherwise likely to be "non admin install" if running on a locked down computer (assuming a java/javascript enabled browser browser is installed, or Java Webstart is installed). Zero-admin means that the programme doesn't need to create registry entries, register DLLs, need to put any files in program files, windows/system or windows/system32 etc. and is available unbundled from an installer or can be unbundled by zipping up files of a working install where all the files are easy to find. (Good no-admin install text editor examples are notepad++ and PFE.)

I know that some of the editors listed are JavaScript, and maybe Java. The comparison of text editors does show ones developed in Java, for example.

--188.223.226.195 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing some html editors

HotDog wiki article. Sausage software page shows "HotDog Professional 7.03 US$99.95" (originally free). Also Netscape Gold software sold in the mid 90's was often purchased for the included web page editor (http://www.zisman.ca/netgold/; http://www.its.hku.hk/news/ccnews67/netgold3.htm; http://users.cis.fiu.edu/~downeyt/cgs3559/goldhtml.htm; http://www.ling.upenn.edu/advice/netedit.html)(after all Netscape Navigator was a free download (unless you were too dumb to figure that out. Very few of my customers came into the stores I worked at to buy Netscape Gold for the included browser.) Several hosting sites offer free use of "Homesite"; it is still available (http://download.cnet.com/HomeSite/3000-10247_4-10001199.html), but discontinued by Adobe (http://www.adobe.com/products/homesite/) or see wiki page Macromedia HomeSite. Also I don't believe Frontpage (Microsoft Office Frontpage 2003) was free (it was sold in the Microsoft Store and other software sales concerns) but often included free with other products Frontpage for Mac may be free but also has limited functionality (no VBA) like Frontpage Express. Another is Apple iWeb for Mac (part of iLife $80). Shjacks45 (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all are HTML editors

I installed the openElement and found out that it can not open an HTML file. What you can do is make a project, open the source view and see the code... editing is limidet. You can not paste the html from somewhere else. So it is not usable to edit my HTML files, that i have on my disk. I would not say that openElement is a "HTML editor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.161.17.22 (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LibreOffice as well as OpenOffice?

The table mentions OpenOffice.org. Presumably any of its features, including HTML editing support, is also available in LibreOffice. -- 76.14.75.47 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC) (SPageWMF on a public computer, honest :-) )[reply]

Kompozer

Is Kompozer really "discontinued?" The kompozer.net web page seems to be stuck in 2010, but the SourceForge page has a May, 2016 version. (It's not clear what's updated, though -- I installed it, and it still shows a 2010 copyright notice.) NCdave (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of HTML editors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HTMLPen.com

I am using HTMLPen.com heavily very recently because of its convenience. I was looking for other editors and felt like I should add it although I did not know Wikipedia rules for talks. So should it be added? Can open edit save html files. It has code completion and code aware coloring. So to me it is a powerful html editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.145.21 (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Light purple for not active and accessibility

The General Information section says "Systems listed on a light purple background are no longer in active development." I can barely tell the difference between the two types of entry in that column. Some are in light purple and some others in a very slightly different light purple. I see NVU is in the very slightly darker light purple and I know that is not in active development, so I think it is the darker light purple for not active development.

I think we need to be highlighting the inactive products in a different way. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

As per WP:NLIST, I propose that only editors with an article be included in this list.

Other similar articles that follow the same rule include List of Python software, List of free and open-source software packages, and Comparison of integrated development environments. Uwsi (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion is also of interest: Talk:List of Python software#Recommended Inclusion Criteria Uwsi (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parameters of comparison and inclusion

There has been discussion above and at AfD, apparently without much consensus, about what parameters to compare, and what data is needed to merit inclusion. The biggest question is whether it is necessary to have a reliable source state the importance of each comparison factor itself, or to have the individual columns if simply relevant to the topic by our own judgment. (@HyperAccelerated and @Orange sticker mentioned this.) I don't think anyone is saying that we literally need to cite a comparison that includes every product in our list, because it is unreasonable to expect to find such a thing. In my mind, both are fine: every table that is composed by Wikipedia editors (as opposed to single-sourced) is an editorial judgment that the information ought to be presented in tabular form, and it is not conventional to require a source stating the importance if we have many sources that state the fact or quantity, or if the relevance is self-evident by the presence of a linked Wikipedia article whose sourced content directly relates it to HTML editing. (We could refer to, for example, Comparison of orbital rocket engines for ideas about implementation. They don't cite a source that says rocket propellant is a valid axis of comparison; they assume that this will be self-evident from the linked article.) TheFeds 20:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to start this article from scratch, how would you select criteria? Firstly, as it's 2026 and not 2005 when this article was created, I think it's fair to say the definition of an HTML editor has changed drastically. I think today users would think first of IDEs like VS Code or perhaps CMSs like Wordpress - neither of which are currently included, and only computer science historians or those of a certain age would think to add Microsoft Office FrontPage or Claris Home Page which do currently feature in the article, completely unreferenced. Then you would have to look at what independent, third party sources have written about these HTML editors and only use common criteria that are found in most if not all of those sources. I'm certain the result would look very different to this version.

I've flagged the unreferenced sections of this article and am also adding the Update template as so much of this article is about defunct software and is missing some very obvious names (or maybe there's a discussion to have on whether or not IDEs or CMSs count, while Open Office does) but to be clear I was strongly in favour of deleting this article and if it doesn't look like anyone wants or is able to improve the serious issues it contains, I'll be removing the offending sections. Orange sticker (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wrote almost the same point about 20 years' difference in tools, and cut it for length. I will grant the concept of an HTML editor as a standalone thing was prominent for a while, but was bookended by Notepad and its kind on one side, and by CMSs and IDEs on the other. I think it is in scope for the article to capture even tools that are past their prime, if they had some significant impact, capability or user base. That backwards look might result in culling some esoteric software products that were added in the past for completeness, or because someone associated with the project wanted to publicize it. It would be valid to base that determination on modern sources looking back, or on sources of the time surveying the landscape.

The inclusion of plaintext editors, office suites, IDEs and CMSs ought to come down to whether they have documented use (Notepad being the classic example) or user-facing HTML editing capability. I would distinguish the ability to save any rich text as HTML/XML from a mode that is intended to directly implement things that are closely associated with HTML—so for example, for Microsoft Office, save as HTML in Microsoft Word probably doesn't make sense to include, but FrontPage (when it was part of Office) does because it provided intentionally user-facing ways to interact with the markup in an HTML context. An IDE that natively creates projects structured as HTML + CSS in a way that can be directly previewed with dependencies and uploaded to the web makes sense, in a way that a generic code editor that merely highlights syntax doesn't. CMSs that only work within a specific website infrastructure (WordPress, SquareSpace, MediaWiki, etc.) probably don't count, as the usual workflow involves very little interaction with things as HTML (even if technically it can be invoked) and a lot of custom JavaScript or similar.

I recognize that's a different standard for different classes of tool, but HTML editing in those eras meant different things. The arbitrary split of some very old tools actually recognizes this. The fact that the division itself is unsourced isn't great, but if that's what it takes to present the (sourced) material coherently, it seems the lesser evil. TheFeds 22:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My first warning of the problems with this article was given on April 25 with the AfD. I think this is enough time to provide sources if there were any. I think we should remove all unreferenced or improperly referenced content now. Dncmartins (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion above and at AfD, apparently without much consensus, about what parameters to compare, and what data is needed to merit inclusion.

Before we begin to even consider this issue, we need reliable sources for every claim that the article makes. We do not host content that is completely unsourced, regardless of whether or not it’s in a comparison article. You have the choice of deleting an offending column or adding the necessary citations. Don’t ping me again until this is done — you are wasting my time. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]