Evaluation of WYSIWYG-editors

Web based editing tools are becoming standard issue in modern content managment systems. As more and more organizations discover the advantages of using strucured markup it is important that these editing tools allow editors to markup content without knowledge of HTML. Unfortunately, many of the WYSIWYG-editing tools in use today create invalid markup or do not have the functionality required. Therefore I have selected some web based editing tools and tried to create a sample document in each of them.

Test method

I have selected test criteria based on commonly found content types and their requirements on markup. The test criteria are in the form of a sample document which contains headings, lists, tables and other types of content. Each tool has been used to create the sample document after which the created markup has been inspected. No features for visual formatting has been tested. These are rarely needed as formatting usually is done in a site-wide stylesheet.

Most of the tools can be configured with custom buttons and/or schemas to create specific markup. In this test the official demo version has been used.

Please not that this test is about web based editors (hosted in a browser window). This does not include Dreamweaver, Fronpage and similar tools. The selected tools (and their respective licensing type) are:

  1. EditOnPro by Realobjects. Commercial license.
  2. XStandard by Belus Technology. Commercial license. Lite version free.
  3. Kupu by OSCOM (et al). Open source (BSD-style license). Currently the default editor in Plone.
  4. FCKeditor by Frederico Caldeira Knabben. Open source (LGPL), commercial license available.
  5. CuteEditor by Cute Soft. Commercial license.
  6. JXHTMLEdit by Tecnick. Open source.
  7. TinyMCE. Open source (LGPL).
  8. Ektron eWebEditPro. Commercial license.

Test result

The total score for each editor is listed below. For test result details see here.

Editor Score (out of 19)
EditOnPro 16
XStandard 14
eWebEditPro 14
CuteEditor 14
TinyMCE 13
FCK-editor 9
Kupu 6

If you find error in the results, please leave a comment or send an e-mail to peter at standards-schmandards.com.

EditOnPro and XStandard seem to be the most advanced editors. They do not rely on cleanup routines or built in browser functionality which ensures consistency between different browser containers. Also, using real XML makes them suitable as a platform for future content management requirements. EditOnPro can be extended with custom schemas and can thus be used as a generic markup editor for specialized content. EditOnPro is a java applet which compared to XStandard makes it load more slowly.

Although CuteEdit and eWebEditPro scored well,they have some drawbacks. Creating table headers involves creating a table and then applyting headers thorugh a separate dialog (in the case of CuteEdit it involves right-clicking a cell, selecting “Verbs” and then “Change to header cell”). This may be too cumbersome for editors to do. And it seems impossible to do this when running CuteEdit in Firefox 1.5.

FCK-editor creates different markup depending on which browser is hosting the editor. Nested lists get the correct markup if you run FCK-editor in Internet Explorer, but not in Firefox. Developers would expect the same behaviour from a component that claims cross-browser compatibility.

TinyMCE scored best among the open source editors. It has functionality to set the lang attribute and title for most elements. Unfortunately it has poor handling of nested lists and I could not find a way to create table captions. These issues should be easy to fix so maybe a future version will provide better functionality.

JXHTMLedit crashed twice in Firefox 1.5 and sometimes display artifacts were left after deleting content.


Many of the tools have a toolbar with icons for various markup needs. Some common mistakes in the toolbar are:

  • The icon to create a blockquote looks like it will increase the left margin. This may lead editors to use incorrect markup to format their text.
  • Icons for items rarely used (such as justified text, subscript, superscript, underline and strikethrough) are available instead of icons for more commonly used markup such as blockquote, quote and acronym.
  • Most of the editors provide extensive customization options. EditOnPro can be set up with a specific schema to enable creation of custom tags.

Recommendations to WYSIWYG-editor developers

Some fundamental things that all editors should consider:

  • Remove toolbar buttons for rarely used markup items such as justified text (justified text on the web is bad for readability).
  • The default installation should provide buttons or menu options for inline quotes, blockquotes and acronyms.
  • When creating a table, headers should be created by default instead of forcing the user to add them later. Throw in a default caption as well to make sure content editors do the right thing.
  • Make sure images without alt-text specified receives an empty alt attribute.
  • Do not use the icon for “indent left” for blockquote markup.
  • If you claim cross-browser compatibility, make sure that the generated markup is identical.
  • Create valid markup



  1. Cody says at 2006-03-05 23:03:

    Thanks for the good article.

    I have a site under construction for a client that will soon need a WYSIWYG editor and you just saved me a bunch of time! I had been planning on testing out the possibilities, but had already been leaning towards TinyMCE. Its nice to know that there are better ones out there.

    You didn’t include Xinha, which I have used before. I’d be interested to know how it stands up.

    +1 to your recommendations as well.

  2. Chris Moritz says at 2006-03-05 23:03:

    Excellent article! I’m going to forward this on to several people in my department.

    I’m curious – why is Macromedia/Adobe’s Contribute 3 tool missing from this list? It’s my understanding that the latest version has improved the quality of the generated markup (something that was painfully missing from earlier versions)?

  3. Peter says at 2006-03-05 23:03:

    Thank you for this very useful article! One little error: in TinyMCE you can nest lists with left and right indent. In order to mix types put the cursor in the item and click on ordered list or vice versa. Realy easy and comfortable.

  4. Peter Krantz says at 2006-03-06 09:03:

    Cody: I will have a look at Xinha and see what it can do.

    Chris: I was thinking about Contribute but since it isn’t running in the browser container and is more similar to a desktop tool I didn’t include it. Maybe it could be included as a comparison.

    Peter: It is correct that you can nest lists visually. However, the markup TinyMCE and some other tools create is not correctly nested. It should look like this:

    <ul> <li>Item 1 <ul><li>Sub item</li></ul> </li> </ul>

  5. CE says at 2006-03-06 19:03:

    Very interesting and will be looking at these results for our shop.

    BTW “criteria” IS a plural, criterion is the singular.

  6. Vlad Alexander says at 2006-03-06 21:03:

    Hi Peter,

    Thanks for reviewing XStandard. A couple comments:

    1. The version you are testing is 1.6.2. Can you please let me know where version 060304 shows up?

    2. Mixed nested lists will be supported in version 1.7 due out later this month.

    3. Block quote can be authored via toolbar button. And we use the correct icon / tooltip (instead of indent icon/and indent tooltip). In 1.7 it will be added to the default Styles drop-down list with the label “Long quotation”.

    4. Inline quote can be authored by customizing the Styles drop down list. However, quotes will not display around the element.

    Also, here is an article that talks a bit about bad markup WYSIWYG editors can generate.

    FYI, here is a screen shot of a dev version of XStandard running in Safari.

    Take care, -Vlad http://xstandard.com

  7. Peter Krantz says at 2006-03-06 21:03:

    Vlad: Thank you for your comment. I have updated the version number in the result table (previously used the test date).

    I am happy to hear about the improvements in the upcoming version and I am sure Safari compatibility will make XStandard an excellent choice for CMS developers.

  8. Ben Langhinrichs says at 2006-03-07 06:03:

    Thanks for the evaluation. We have considered coming up with a similar evaluation rubric to use on our web editors page (the site you mention). I’ll take a look and see how whether your rubric is a good starting point.

  9. Daniele says at 2006-03-07 21:03:

    Quite a good article indeed, but I’ve found two errors: FCKeditor perform nested list correctly, both ordered and not ordered. You have to use the indent (or unindent) command from the toolbar while you are writing an list item.


  10. Peter Krantz says at 2006-03-07 22:03:

    Daniele: I have noticed that this depends on which browser is hosting the editor. In Firefox 1.5, nesting is wrong, but in IE (7 beta 2) nesting is correct. I will add a note to the test result. It is bad when different containers create different markup.

  11. Joe Clark says at 2006-03-07 22:03:

    You could consider Nvu and Google Page Creator for a later update.

  12. Peter Krantz says at 2006-03-08 08:03:

    Joe: Those would be in a different category (along with Dreamweaver and Frontpage) as they are not hosted in the browser. But it is a good idea to test applications as well. I’ll consider that for a future article.

  13. Matt Ryan says at 2006-03-11 07:03:

    This is a great topic. I have been frustrated for quite a long time at the non-semantic, low-accessibility markup encouraged by many wysiwyg editors. It’s interesting (and a little sad) that in your rankings the free/open-source editors overall fared the worst.

    With the backing of my employer, I’ve been leading a team developing a wysiwyg editor built from the ground up to both produce goood markup and to encourage semantic elements rather than presentational ones. I like your list of requests, because it fits really nicely with my own thoughts on how this stuff ought to be done.

    When it’s ready we plan to release it open source. (I think we’re about a month away from that point now.) As we get closer we’d love to have feedback from the accesibility and standards communities about how we’re doing… Peter, would you be interested in taking a look at that point and giving us feedback?

  14. Jachin says at 2006-03-16 21:03:

    What about r.a.d.editor? They claim XHTML 1.1 compliance.

  15. Daniele Fusillo says at 2006-03-18 16:03:

    Jachin, one indication if a WYSIWYG editor meets its claims is to validate the Web site of the vendor. The Web page you provided that decribes telerik’s claims of supporting XHTML has 242 validation errors.

  16. Jeff says at 2006-03-23 02:03:

    any reason you didn’t test Ektron’s eWebEditPro?

  17. Peter Krantz says at 2006-03-23 16:03:
    • Jeff:* I have updated the test result with data for eWebEditPro.
  18. David Moore says at 2006-03-23 21:03:

    Thought you might be interested in another look at some of these editors over at our site: http://iqcontent.com/publications/features/article_73/

    Laurence (who did the review) also rates XStandard and TinyMCE highly

  19. gabriel says at 2006-03-23 22:03:

    very good read. 2 corrections I found. i do not think ewebeditpro run in FF and xstandard do support blockquote.

  20. Jeff says at 2006-03-24 04:03:

    Thanks – I was curious how it would fare against the others.

  21. Ryno says at 2006-03-26 14:03:

    While it may be on lighter side of WYSIWYG functionality, Cameron Adam’s Widg Editor is worth a look also.

    A simple, robust, customisable and fast WYSIWYG editor for taming those ‘mad with power’ clients.

  22. Moxiecode says at 2006-03-27 10:03:

    Excellent article, a few comments on your TinyMCE tests. There is a new version out now (

    It has the option “fix_list_elements”, it is still disabled by default though. It will create correct format of the lists.

    I know its not valid for the test since you are testing core functionality, but there is an excellent 3rd party plugin for creating Acronyms, will probably be included in the core soon.

    Im not sure what you mean by the quote inline test? It is possible to create styles using the styles dropdown for custom quoting for example.

    This is a great evaluation of WYSIWYG editors, but I would like to see one where features, installation, configuration, bugs/issues and customization are evaluated against eachother.

  23. Moxiecode says at 2006-03-27 10:03:

    Oh, and one more thing, in my opinion, comparing Java/ActiveX components to pure JavaScript editors is a little unfair, still a good article though :)

  24. Peter Krantz says at 2006-03-27 20:03:

    Moxiecode: Thank you. Out of curiosity, how come fix_list_elements isn’t enabled by default? Everybody wants that.

    Inline quote checks if it is possible to create the <q> element.

    I am sure that with some minor modifications TinyMCE could receive a top score in a test like this.

  25. Moxiecode says at 2006-03-28 09:03:

    Well, the browser built in execCommand for creating lists by default creates these faulty lists, TinyMCE cleans the output when the form is submitted or content is cleaned up, the lists will then “twitch” a little and some browsers doesn’t quite like the correct format of lists, indenting (or other operations) on such a list might cause strange results in some browsers.

  26. Anna says at 2006-04-06 14:04:

    We are using Asbru with great success. It also works on Safari. It seems to be the only WYSIWYG-editor, which does that reliably.

  27. Vlad Alexander says at 2006-04-10 23:04:

    Hi Peter,

    Thanks again for bringing issues with XStandard 1.6.2 to our attention. We just released 1.7 and wanted to let you know we addressed 3 of them:

    1. Mixed nested lists are now supported

    2. Inline quotes are now supported

    3. Though block quotes have always been supported, we’ve added support for them from the Styles drop-down menu.

    It would be great if you could update your review to include version 1.7.


  28. Cris Necochea says at 2006-04-12 21:04:

    Hello, I just wanted to offer my comments on TinyMCE and Safari. It will display the toolbar, but I can confirm that none of the WYSIWYG functionality works on Safari as of at least version 2.0.2 and up. If anything, I wish that the TinyMCE website would remove Safari from their grid of supported browsers. We explicitly disable it for Safari currently.

  29. Moxiecode says at 2006-04-14 15:04:

    The Safari developers has focused more on getting their browser to work with TinyMCE and other editors, due to the improvments they made some code was removed from the TinyMCE codebase, this did break backwards compatiblity but future versions (Currently only nightly builds) should start working better.

  30. wikler says at 2006-05-04 02:05:

    I run eArea when I need Safari compatibility and am totally satisfied with it – only does the essentials for WYSISYG but is pretty much fully custonizable and produces the same UI and results regardless of browser.

  31. enzo says at 2006-05-25 00:05:

    Finaly a thorough test on browser based WYSIWYG editors. It has been damn hard to find suiteable solutions in the sea of editors lately. However, I do miss more browsers in the browser compatability test. Opera for instance is not mentioned, and with the new version 9 (in beta 2 now) it suports content editable (TinyMCE got it covered).

    That’s my 2 cents, well done! :)

  32. PowerObject! says at 2006-05-26 06:05:

    How about the SPAW editor for solmetra?

  33. Frederico Caldeira Knabben says at 2006-06-15 02:06:

    Hello Peter,

    I’ve just faced your article. It is an interesting point of view, as other users may be interested in other features.

    I’ve just release FCKeditor (not FCK-editor ;)) version 2.3. Based on your test criteria, we could update your results. The new version corrected the “nested lists” issues (both), and also the “Emphasis” and Strong emphasis (those were actually configurable in the 2.2, but are set by default). This would change FCKeditor’s score to 13.

    An important point to note here is that FCKeditor is a pure JavaScript application, which requires no installation in the browser. This makes a big difference when compared to other editors.

    Thanks for your opinion. It is nice to have such kind of feedback. FCKeditor is facing a quick evolution in this moment, and this will confirm it as the most used editor out there.

    Best regards, Frederico Caldeira Knabben http://www.fckeditor.net

  34. Peter Krantz says at 2006-06-15 09:06:

    Frederico: Thank you for your great work with FCKEditor. I know that FCKEditor is the first-hand choice of many web developers.

    The new version seems to correct many of the iisues I found in the test. Are there any chance of adding the other type of functionality (table headers, acronyms, blockquotes etc)? These should be fairly easy to implement on the framework you already have and would add a lot of value to users and readers.

  35. Frederico Caldeira Knabben says at 2006-06-20 19:06:

    Thanks for your suggestions Peter. Much of this is already part of our Roadmap. I’m sure you will enjoy every future version of FCKeditor.

    Thanks again for your analysis.

  36. Michelangelo says at 2006-06-29 18:06:

    Interesting comparison! Just wondering: should your test also cover the handling of form elements? For example, a good WYSIWYG tool could encourage or enforce the use of <label for=”…”>.

  37. Peter Krantz says at 2006-06-30 14:06:

    Michelangelo: creating forms is typically not done in a WYSIWYG editor like these. Forms usually need to be created with some backend handling functionality to work properly. But, tools to create forms should definitely be enforcing the label element.

  38. Ian Brockbank says at 2006-07-11 14:07:

    Hi Peter,

    How many of these support Opera? I understand there is some work on Opera 9 support for Kupu ongoing at present.



  39. Jon Stahl says at 2006-07-11 21:07:


    Your evaluation of Kupu is unfortunately factually incorrect.

    Per Alexander Limi, co-Founder of Plone (which uses Kupu as its default editor), Kupu has support for the following features:

       * Block quote    * Alt text for images    * Emphasis    * Strong    * Paragraph

    (you most likely used an old version of Firefox if you think it handled paragraphs incorrectly)

    In addition, the (nested) lists are there, but as you points out, they produce bad markup unless it’s run through mxTidy or similar. This can hopefully be fixed in the future.

    This brings Kupu’s score to 10, not 6.

  40. canton says at 2006-07-12 18:07:

    Thank you *so much* for this review. It’s exactly the thing I was hunting for on the web.

  41. Peter Krantz says at 2006-07-13 13:07:


    • There is not a button in the tested version of Kupu to create a blockquote. There is, however, a button to indent text which will produce a blockquote. This is wrong as users will create blockquotes for formatting purposes.
    • Clicking the “B” icon to emphasize text will create a b tag instead of strong. The same goes for the “i” icon. Instead the strong and em elements should be used (and iconography changed).
    • Paragraphs will only be created if you first apply the “normal” formatting. Writing text in a blank Kupu editor area will produce br elements instead of paragraphs. Try it by visiting the link above, switch to source view and clear all html, return to editing mode and write stuff.
    • If you insert an image you will have the option to write an alt-text. However, if you do not write an alt-text, there will be no alt attribute in the markup. This is wrong as there should be an empty alt attribute.

    As I recall there is also a difference in the markup created if you use Internet Explorer instead of Firefox. This is of course unacceptable. Today I used Firefox

  42. Neil says at 2006-07-17 18:07:

    Hi Peter,

    Great article and interesting feedback!

    Similar to Cody (first response) I’d be interested to know how Xinha stands up to the other editors – any chance of a quick review?



  43. Wimster says at 2006-11-20 16:11:

    I am looking in to inline editors right now for the site in my name link.
    I am developing a pretty simple cms for it. and what i basically need is an inline HTML editor which does not handle html formatting tags, but only applies css selectors which i defined in the site’s css file.

    that way i can ensure layout and styling consistency, even with a non web savvy content manager.

    i tried fck editor and undress it so only the atyle toolbar applies, but it still shows useless buttons that can confuse the user.
    what i think should be possible is fire up an editor enter your basic content, and apply your styles to it including span / div / id etc selectors.

    nobody developed anything like that yet?
    hmm i must talk to my programmer friends then..

  44. Morgan Newall says at 2006-11-20 18:11:

    Ive been, as have others, searching for the perfect WYSIWYG solution. Im currently using FCKeditor, but have been less than impressed with its output.

    Seriously considering commercial solutions, after I test TinyMCE, ive come to Xstandard as well, which looks good, albeit overpriced (if you need more than free version, which i mIGHT).
    I just found Qwebeditor, which looks like it produces clean code (from some quick tests), is a LOT cheaper than XStandard (commercial version). Would have to look more into CMS integration issues, which XStandard seems to have down pat. But the basics it does well.

  45. Peter Krantz says at 2006-11-20 23:11:

    Morgan, Qwebeditor looks interesting. A pity it isn’t open source software. It may be time to do an updated test of more WYSIWYG editors soon.

  46. Simon Weijgers says at 2006-12-04 12:12:


    I’d be interesting on hearing how RAD Editor (by Telerik) stacks up against your criteria.


  47. Simon Weijgers says at 2006-12-04 12:12:


  48. Jean-François says at 2006-12-04 23:12:

    Hi Peter,
    Nice article, thank you!

    I’d like to present WYMeditor:
    WYMeditor is a web-based XHTML editor, not WYSIWYG, but WYSIWYM: the end-user can concentrate on rich content, while layout and design are handled via style-sheets.

    It is written in javascript (no plugin needed), is MSIE and Gecko compatible, and MIT/GPLed.

    The key point here is customization: you’ll need to customize containers menu, classes menu and templates to generate content ‘compatible’ with your document.

    As the code is compliant to W3C specifications, you can process it using a XSLT (at the client or the server side), giving you a wide range of applications.

    So maybe it will interest you, too.


  49. Marc McHale says at 2006-12-13 12:12:

    Would it be possible to update the article using the xstandard 1.7.1? I have used it for a few months and have found it to be superb.

    I am interested to see how it does against the others.



  50. Dennis says at 2006-12-15 00:12:

    I was disappointed with XStandard. I really like Nvu, pronounced N-view (www.nvu.com)

  51. Vic says at 2006-12-15 18:12:

    I run eArea when I need Safari compatibility and am totally satisfied with it – only does the essentials for WYSISYG but is pretty much fully custonizable and produces the same UI and results regardless of browser.

  52. Kmo says at 2006-12-16 10:12:

    I really can’t understand how Ektron eWebEditPro could score such high points. I have used it for quite some time now and it just feels unbelievably clumsy and sometimes even unresponsive. The WYSIWYG editing in it is usually quite tedious so I have become accustomed to do all the editing in some good (X)HTML editor and then pasting the markup to eWebEditPro’s source view. I guess this is not how a WYSIWYG editor should be used. :)

  53. Matt Ryan says at 2006-12-20 02:12:

    Finally, the editor I referred to earlier this year is actually available for download (still a beta, but pretty solid). Loki is an attempt at a WYSIWYG editor that strives to be as standards-compliant/accessible/semantically decent as it can be while also being easy to use. It was developed at Carleton College in Minnesota, USA (my employer) and we were able to convince management to release it under the GPL. So we’re offering it up in hopes that we can build a user community around it… It’s not super feature-heavy, but it was written in a pretty modular and extensible way, so people should be able to add additional features as needed.

  54. Brian says at 2007-01-07 08:01:

    Alot of interesting stuff here and some good new editors appearing by the looks of it. I have been driven to distraction looking for one simple feature though and that is the ability to require that the user include a title attribute with links. It’s all very well giving a user the option to provide one but I think in this day and age the user should be forced to do so or at least as a developer I should be able to configure it to require the user to do so. The same goes for images and the alt attribute. I don’t think it’s valid to allow empty alt attributes in a wysiwyg editor for a CMS for example because a user is very unlikely to be developing a template with filler gifs (God forbid) or doing something fancy with images. Abstract Images should be in css anyway.
    Providing options to a user is no good when most users will not be too savy with technology. For example don’t ask a user if they want their link to have a target of ‘_blank’. Most won’t have a clue what that means. If you must provide the option to open a link in a new window (I wouldn’t) then use plain english and allow the developer to disable this option too.

  55. Peter says at 2007-01-07 11:01:

    Brian, Why would you want to force the user to enter a title attribute? Ideally, the link text is sufficient to understand what the link is about. Forcing the title attribute will probably reslut in editors setting the same text as the link text. Also, the title attribute is not widely used by e.g. screen readers.

    I would strongly recommend anyone from developing an editor where that enforce the title attrbute on links.

  56. Brian says at 2007-01-08 01:01:

    You can’t control your users. You can tell them to use proper text for a link instead of “click here” but in practice they may not. Being able to force them to add a title attribute (perhaps presented to them as the description of the link) will help. I don’t think it’s too much to have the option to enforce a title and if you have good users you don’t need to turn it on.

  57. Peter Krantz says at 2007-01-08 09:01:

    Brian, but what do you think they would write in the title attribute if the cant write a proper link text? And what would you use the title attribute for? For sighted users the text is invisible and for screen reader users it is hidden for most (it has to be specifically enabled in the screen reader software in most cases).

    Enforcing the title attribute means you have put an extra burden on your content editors with little result.

  58. Nick says at 2007-01-31 23:01:

    Hi ! Nice test but BBComposer is not part of him… I think he could approach the record  ! ;)

  59. Simon Rönnqvist says at 2007-02-02 19:02:

    BitFlux Editor is the only WYSIWYG that I know that actually validates the code and therefore can guarantee that it’s valid. Mozile will include this functionality in a while. Unfortunately both are Mozila/Firefox only editors, but an upcoming version of Mozile will support IE6 too.

  60. gregory says at 2007-02-13 05:02:

    i think Ektron’s ewebedit pro should be scored much lower. It is an active X control which you MUST install to use and is frequently out of date with firefox and incompatible with safari.

    The performance of thing is also pretty bad. Because it is active-x there is time spent initializing the plugin into the page, then they have a loading bar because there are half a dozen different external xml files which load up (with a cheesy preloading animation).

    At least FCK editor doesnt require client side installation.

  61. Den says at 2007-03-06 18:03:

    Well, the best WYSIWYG Website editor is the Visual Web Pack of Netbeans 5.5. It is more powerfull than Dreamweaver and it is free. Currently you still need to program with Java, but Ruby is coming soon…

  62. Carlos says at 2007-03-13 14:03:

    What’s happen width KTML4 FROM http://www.interaktonline.com ? I think it’s one of the best wysiwyg editors…

  63. Chris says at 2007-09-08 22:09:

    You must add SPAW editor. This is not a complete evaluation without it. I’ve used spaw for a long time, and it just got better and better.

  64. Ingo says at 2007-12-06 07:12:

    All of the javascript editors I have tried have serious problems.
    TinyMCE changes URLs.
    FCKEditor strips out custom (server side) tags.
    Many editors create a blob of unformatted HTML. Unbelievable! None that I have seen have a “Format HTML” button. I mean, come on, how hard is it to indent a well formed document?
    It is unbelievable how many of the editors strip out valid elements such as HTML comments.
    I have found these problems in expensive commercial editors as well as open source editors.
    I do respect the authors of these tools, but I suspect that a many of these problems are caused by using browser supplied HTML edit controls.
    I would like to see an editor that uses the HTML source code as a reference, and injects HTML only as requested in WYSIWIG mode. Minimize rewriting of the source code. Do not delete or alter existing HTML elements. And, obviously, generate valid HTML.

  65. Ingo says at 2007-12-06 07:12:

    Spaw adds blank lines to the HTML source every time I switch between HTML and Design view.
    Also, hitting enter (in Firefox) creates a instead of a

  66. Ingo says at 2007-12-06 07:12:

    Spaw adds blank lines to the HTML source every time I switch between HTML and Design view.
    Also, hitting enter (in Firefox) creates a <br> instead of a <p>

  67. Bill says at 2008-01-20 05:01:

    This website is Great! I will recommend you to all my friends. I found so much useful things here. Thank you.

  68. Ryan says at 2008-03-28 20:03:

    This is kind of an old thread, but for those of you coming in looking for info on WYSIWYG editors and if you happen to use Dreamweaver, there’s an extension available that integrates FCKeditor into your forms through a Dreamweaver extension. It’s pretty much click and go, so there aren’t the usual configuration requirements. It’s called iRite by WebAssist.

  69. Phil Hardcastle says at 2008-08-01 02:08:

    Why do ‘most’ w3 compliant sites look s**t? I google this and no one has asked this question…are people scared to ask it? The authority in web design – and their site looks totally rubbish (from a design perspective)?

    I’m sorry – they all look the same too…which beats me…design is about conveying information….I bet you lot are the type of people who (wrongly) use Arial all the time and then (god forbid!) actually print the horrible typeface, a purpose for which it was not intended…a butchered Helvetica. Serif fonts is surely an old wife’s tale – it made no difference to my reading experience.

  70. Job Search Guy says at 2009-03-02 02:03:

    thanks for this article, its defiantly going to get passed around the office today. love your work!

  71. Gonzalo says at 2009-04-25 01:04:

    This post is very old, I think it would be good to have the post date at the top of the article or even better, a notice warning that this info is not recent. Otherwise it can be a bit misleading, IMO.

  72. Scott says at 2009-12-02 21:12:

    We use tinymce for our site development and love it. It’s made a big difference in speeding up additions to the website.
    San Jose theft attorney

    The wysiwyg editor is full featured and even allows direct HTML editing when necessary.

  73. abusedaddy says at 2011-05-08 01:05:

    Most registrars, including Go Daddy, automatically lock your domain. I got an email from go daddy fraud dept stating my account info does not match that of the billing info and my account is now locked. Customer support has no idea other than what the email stated. I did just get another email today from my reseller store (which is run by GoDaddy) reminding me to check my WHOIS data. The WHOIS information for all domains was changed. The nameservers associated with all domains were changed. Some domains expired during the GoDaddy investigation, I was never given a chance to renew. I have requested the ability to transfer my domain names to another registrar, I am ignored. Many of my domain names had established a positive Google Pagerank, this has all been lost. GoDaddy has stolen my domain names, stolen my traffic, stolen my business, and continues to ignore === WARNING: Stop use Domain registrar GoDaddy customers, GoDaddy lock domains.

Leave a comment

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Peter Krantz, peter.krantz@giraffe.gmail.com (remove giraffe).