Clean html editor desperately wanted!

[tracymar55]

I've been handcoding html for 12 years and have over 1500 pages on my
websites, but in the past year ran my pages through a variety of
editors in order to some quick touchups and now my code is disastrous.
In fact, I was counting on writing and posting a four page article last
night but mistakenly ran it through the NVU editor and as a result was
up all night cleaning it up. The code that programs generates is
horrendous. It actually generated an entire half page which had no text
on it....just tags that started and immediately ended, cancelling each
other out. And it converted my font size <font size="+1"> tags to:
<font size+1="">.

ANYWAY I tried to learn Dreamweaver but it altered my existing pages
and the structure of my one of my sites.......and I will not go near it
again.

I am DESPERATE now to find for under $100 a decent WYSIWYG editor that
is quick to learn, is great for hand coding AND will also allow me to
do some quick instant html creation and will not destroy the work I've
already done.

Despite functioning on 1 hour's sleep after the last night html clean
up campaign, I've spent the entire day researching html editors online
and haven't found one that consistently gets reviews for clean code and
leaving your previous work alone.

(What is also driving me nuts is that some of these editors actually
change Google Ad Sense code too so that the code doesn't work and one
could get disqualified from Google as a result!
It actually added words something like "NVU disruptive" in the middle
of the code!

Anyone out there who has done hand-coding of html for years and has
found a relatively inexpensive WYSIWYG alternative for quick work that
is tolerable to use and at least relatively clean (and doesn't convert
simple code to complex styles)? I am getting desperate! I have 100 new
pages to write and post this month.
Tracy
http://www.windweaver.com

 

[Ed Mullen]

I've been handcoding html for 12 years and have over 1500 pages on my
websites, but in the past year ran my pages through a variety of
editors in order to some quick touchups and now my code is disastrous.
Anyone out there who has done hand-coding of html for years and has
found a relatively inexpensive WYSIWYG alternative for quick work that
is tolerable to use and at least relatively clean (and doesn't convert
simple code to complex styles)? I am getting desperate! I have 100 new
pages to write and post this month.

You've been hand-coding HTML for 12 years and all of a sudden you're
looking for a WYSIWYG editor? How about a good text editor that has
advanced global search and replace? I also hand-code my pages. I will
sometimes load 50 pages into my text editor and do search/replace. You
need to be careful in constructing and executing the S/R but it works
fine and doesn't touch formatting.

Or maybe I'm missing what you're driving at. Or maybe you need some
sleep? ;-)

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Have you noticed since everyone has a camcorder these days no one talks
about seeing UFOs like they used to?

 

[dorayme]

I've been handcoding html for 12 years and have over 1500 pages on my
websites, but in the past year ran my pages through a variety of
editors in order to some quick touchups and now my code is disastrous.
snip

I am DESPERATE now to find for under $100 a decent WYSIWYG editor that
is quick to learn, is great for hand coding AND will also allow me to
do some quick instant html creation and will not destroy the work I've
already done.

Just in case, but pardon me anyway, you should be working on
duplicates when doing such things, then it is no big deal when it
all goes awry.

Don't feel so desperate! Keep some of your favourite templates on
hand and use a good text editor. But if you must use some
wsyswig, just to get some of the basics up and running, then you
must! Good luck learning something easier than Dreamweaver.

But it is not hard to make your own little gismos with Search and
Replace functions. For example, you want a list. You select the
text that has one item on each line and you apply a previously
saved "Find & Replace" pattern, for example, in BBEdit (a Mac
editor) I keep Replace ^ with <li> and it replaces the beginning
of the line with <li>, similar for the end. There is very little
you cannot do with this sort of thing.

Take a set of paragraphs in a text: there is a full stop and a
line break or two and a capital letter starting a line for the
next para. This can be used to make a pattern and insert </p>
after the stop and <p> before the capital letter.

Just makes life a bit easier. Truth is that this is not what
takes most of the time in website making! It is the design of the
layout, things which are particularly poorly done by WSIWGS in
general.

 

[patrick j]

But it is not hard to make your own little gismos with Search and
Replace functions. For example, you want a list. You select the
text that has one item on each line and you apply a previously
saved "Find & Replace" pattern, for example, in BBEdit (a Mac
editor) I keep Replace ^ with <li> and it replaces the beginning
of the line with <li>, similar for the end. There is very little
you cannot do with this sort of thing.

I agree entirely that for creation of HTML what is required is a text
editor with good find/replace.

I use BBEdit (on a Mac) as well primarily because the find/replace
implementation is excellent.

For me a good find/replace is far more valuable than anything you might
get from a "WYSIWYG" type of editor.

As well as GREP good multi-file find/replace is also essential. With
multi-file find replace of common elements throughout a series of files
can be easily changed.

The next good thing to have in an editor for HTML is scriptability.
With this then I can compile find/replace expressions and include other
commands thus effectively creating my own features.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=]

tracymar55 wrote :

I've been handcoding html for 12 years and have over 1500 pages on my
websites,

Yes...

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:word"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 9">
<meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 9">
<link rel=File-List href="./haveyougivenup_files/filelist.xml">
<title>HAVE YOU GIVEN UP ON POLITICS</title>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<oocumentProperties>
<o:Author>Tracy Marks</o:Author>
<o:LastAuthor>Tracy Marks</o:LastAuthor>

http://www.windweaver.com/politics/politics.htm

but in the past year ran my pages through a variety of

editors in order to some quick touchups and now my code is disastrous.
In fact, I was counting on writing and posting a four page article last
night but mistakenly ran it through the NVU editor and as a result was
up all night cleaning it up. The code that programs generates is
horrendous. It actually generated an entire half page which had no text
on it....just tags that started and immediately ended, cancelling each
other out.

I have checked several websites you did and none of them had a single
webpage without markup errors. None. Zero. In fact, none of them had a
single valid doctype declaration, most of them had dozens and dozens of
<font> everywhere, hundreds of &nbsp;, etc

I found this in one of your webpage:

<span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</span>

<font size="+0">

<font size+1="">.

I'd be extremely surprised if Nvu actually did that.

ANYWAY I tried to learn Dreamweaver but it altered my existing pages
and the structure of my one of my sites.......and I will not go near it
again.

I am DESPERATE now to find for under $100 a decent WYSIWYG editor that
is quick to learn, is great for hand coding AND will also allow me to
do some quick instant html creation and will not destroy the work I've
already done.

A lot of text editors will do that.

Despite functioning on 1 hour's sleep after the last night html clean
up campaign, I've spent the entire day researching html editors online
and haven't found one that consistently gets reviews for clean code and
leaving your previous work alone.

The thing is you could still be able to do this. I use markup cleaner
and HandCoder 0.3.4 with Nvu 1.0 with the latest Tidy (Feb. 2006): it
works great.

(What is also driving me nuts is that some of these editors actually
change Google Ad Sense code too so that the code doesn't work and one
could get disqualified from Google as a result!

Well, there is such a thing as valid markup code, you know. Valid and
validated markup code.

It actually added words something like "NVU disruptive" in the middle
of the code!

You're blaming Nvu way too much, I'd say.

Anyone out there who has done hand-coding of html for years and has
found a relatively inexpensive WYSIWYG alternative for quick work that
is tolerable to use and at least relatively clean (and doesn't convert
simple code to complex styles)? I am getting desperate! I have 100 new
pages to write and post this month.
Tracy
http://www.windweaver.com

Gérard

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=]

tracymar55 wrote :

I've been handcoding html for 12 years and have over 1500 pages on my
websites

I'd be extremely surprised if that was true, even just partially true. I
examined more of your webpages and it's obvious you've been using a
variety of HTML editors. <img src="/img/spacer.gif" don't just happen to
pop up in a webapge, just like that. Same thing with empty nodes: these
are typical signs of HTML editors, not of hand-coded webpages.

Tracy
http://www.windweaver.com

Anyone can visit your 1500 pages on your websites (and your script
functions) and make his own opinion all by himself.

Gérard

 

[dorayme]

tracymar55 wrote :
....


I have checked several websites you did and none of them had a single
webpage without markup errors. None. Zero. In fact, none of them had a
single valid doctype declaration, most of them had dozens and dozens of
<font> everywhere, hundreds of &nbsp;, etc

Well Gerard, you really gave it to her... at length. I guess she
deserved it eh? She felt frustrated at a few things, was seeking
a bit of advice, having a bit of a rave... but you sure know
about tough love.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

I've been handcoding html for 12 years and have over 1500 pages on my
websites, but in the past year ran my pages through a variety of
editors in order to some quick touchups and now my code is disastrous.
In fact, I was counting on writing and posting a four page article
last night but mistakenly ran it through the NVU editor and as a
result was up all night cleaning it up. The code that programs
generates is horrendous. It actually generated an entire half page
which had no text on it....just tags that started and immediately
ended, cancelling each other out. And it converted my font size <font
size="+1"> tags to: <font size+1="">.

ANYWAY I tried to learn Dreamweaver but it altered my existing pages
and the structure of my one of my sites.......and I will not go near
it again.

I am DESPERATE now to find for under $100 a decent WYSIWYG editor that
is quick to learn, is great for hand coding AND will also allow me to
do some quick instant html creation and will not destroy the work I've
already done.

I use FrontPage 2002 and it *never* changed my coding. I cann't imagine
Dreameaver does (unless your setting are incorrect)
Sugestion: Use (hand coded) CSS for your presentation in an external
stylesheet (attached to your pages).
A WYSIWYG-editor like FP is ideal to apply the styles to selected text.
To clean up existing code soup you can use Detagger
http://www.jafsoft.com/detagger/ but probably it's better to start over from
scratch.

Good luck!

 

[ato_zee]

You can still handcode in Dreamweaver 8.0, it's WYSIWYG is a bit
flaky, and mis-used it can, like some other editors, produce code
that doesn't validate ar W3C.
I still prefer simple text editors, using DW8 if I want to see and
resolve a site structure problem, it's also invaluable for clearing
site clutter by finding orphened items and broken links.
I've found TypeItIn very useful, as I have sets of tags and
sections of coding that I can insert without having to type them
in full every time. It also holds the characters and items
that have to be inserted by hand, colours come to mind,
copyright etc
There are several TypeItIn like programs around, it's just
the first I found, does what I want, and is simple to use.

 

[Anon]

Maybe not for USD 100, but there is a very easy to use and powerfull
system that contains a simple HTML editor. Look at http://smpc.com.br

There is a demonstration available : http://smpc.com.br/inventory
login as "demo-en" with password "demo". Then click on the "pencil"
icon (third from below) which opens the knowledgebase. There you can
create your HTML articles, give them properties, and search and manage
them. The content can be used on websites.

regards, Allie

 

[David Segall]

a relatively inexpensive WYSIWYG alternative for quick work that
is tolerable to use and at least relatively clean (and doesn't convert
simple code to complex styles)?

I'm surprised you have had so much trouble with Dreamweaver and NVU
but you might like to try Oracle's JDeveloper
<http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/jdev/index.html> It is
complex development environment aimed at Java programmers but buried
in it is a WYSIWYG HTML editor and it is free. It is fairly basic and
does not have the features that make Dreamweaver a total HTML
environment.

I don't think it will try to alter your markup but it is probably
worth validating your HTML before you feed it to a WYSIWYG editor. If
you do try it I would appreciate a follow up on how you found it. I
have only used it to add a simple page to a Java Server Pages project.

 

[tracymar55]

tracymar55 wrote :
Yes...

I have checked several websites you did and none of them had a single
webpage without markup errors. None. Zero. In fact, none of them had a
single valid doctype declaration, most of them had dozens and dozens of
<font> everywhere, hundreds of &nbsp;, etc

----------

You are absolutely right. My pages are a mess. That's my point. The
ones I hand coded for years were just about perfect, but since I write
and put up at least 500 pages of my own a year, and several thousand
photos, in addition to working more than fulltime, I try to write,
design, optimize all photography for and do the html for each page in
about an hour a page......

For many years I painstakingly handcoded each page but for the past few
years when I want to put up 200 new photos and several articles I wrote
in a few hours, I just run it all through WYSIWYG editor. Plus I make
quick changes to my old pages through a variety of editors (I keep
trying one, hating it, and trying another). The editors have been
terrible and have destroyed the code on all the pages I so carefully
did years ago.

THAT is why I am asking for suggestions about editors with the cleanest
code. For years, I was writing clean code (really I was! I even teach
people how to write clean html!). But I stay away from the newest
developments in html, since some of my audience is in third world
countries or using community college computers with browsers like
Netscape 4!) and I absolutely don't want to use an editor that will
triple the length of my code with all sorts of style sheet
gobbledygood. (I had a cleanly coded page of about 6 paragraphs and
doing some quick NVU editing on it increased the file size of the from
3kb to 30kb!)

Also I often write several articles a month for all the continuing ed
classes I teach, and do photoshoots with hundreds of skating photos,
and usually do all the writing and photo work for and put up 5 or more
new pages or so in one evening's time. Plus once a year I set aside a
few evenings to edit, link check and change several hundred pages or
so.

It's easy to create a template NOW, but I have subsites on more than a
dozen topics since 1996 I made all of them quite different in the past
- so that my website for US Nationals figure skating competition photos
for one year for example is done with one layout in one color
combination, and my web site for my class on Homer's Odyssey and class
materials is done another way..... And several times a year I just
quickly do a new photo site and several hundred photos using
Photoshop's web gallery - which differ with each version of photoshop.

If I could go back to 1996 and start again, I would certainly NOT
create five dozen different layouts.....but now I'm stuck with the huge
variety of pages from the past.....which I need to edit.

I know. What I'm trying to do is impossible......I've sacrifiiced
decent code to time issues, but I haven't even bothered to promote my
two websites and I've had 14 million hits and am #1 in Google for
figure skating and ice skating photos and many of my greek mythology
articles are in the top 5 on Google. (And believe it or not I've
refused to have any advertising on my site whatsoever until 2 weeks ago
when I started putting up Google Adsense...but it's taking forever to
add it to 1500 pages all with different colors and layouts...).

My figure skating pages (about 500 of them) get about a million hits
during the winter skating season and I'm trying to redo them all in a
few days since the traffic is already starting to increase.

Anyway I will now read the rest of this thread and thank you all for
responding <-:
Tracy

 

[Joe (GKF)]

I agree entirely that for creation of HTML what is required is a text
editor with good find/replace.

I use BBEdit (on a Mac) as well primarily because the find/replace
implementation is excellent.

For me a good find/replace is far more valuable than anything you might
get from a "WYSIWYG" type of editor.

As well as GREP good multi-file find/replace is also essential. With
multi-file find replace of common elements throughout a series of files
can be easily changed.

The next good thing to have in an editor for HTML is scriptability.
With this then I can compile find/replace expressions and include other
commands thus effectively creating my own features.

Totally agree with all of that. On Windows, I like Notepad++
(http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/ ) and SciTE
(http://www.scintilla.org )

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=]

tracymar55 wrote :

tracymar55 wrote :
Yes...

I have checked several websites you did and none of them had a single
webpage without markup errors. None. Zero. In fact, none of them had a
single valid doctype declaration, most of them had dozens and dozens of
<font> everywhere, hundreds of &nbsp;, etc

----------

You are absolutely right. My pages are a mess. That's my point. The
ones I hand coded for years were just about perfect, but since I write
and put up at least 500 pages of my own a year, and several thousand
photos, in addition to working more than fulltime, I try to write,
design, optimize all photography for and do the html for each page in
about an hour a page......
[snipped]

THAT is why I am asking for suggestions about editors with the cleanest
code.

You talk about "clean code" - and we don't really know what you're
talking about; none of your webpages uses valid markup code to begin
with. *_Valid_* markup code. Starting with a valid doctype declaration.

For years, I was writing clean code (really I was! I even teach

people how to write clean html!). But I stay away from the newest
developments in html, since some of my audience is in third world
countries or using community college computers with browsers like
Netscape 4!)

I suggest you talk to them and ask them to replace NS 4 with Firefox
2.0. Firefox 2.0 is smaller in size, faster, more
web-standards-compliant, more secure, etc. than NS 4

and I absolutely don't want to use an editor that will

triple

You're exaggerating here. You're talking about a 300% increase.

the length of my code with all sorts of style sheet

gobbledygood.

When there is a clear separation of content from presentation thanks to
an implementation of CSS, then the combined filesize of the .html
webpage and the .css file is usually smaller than an original webpage
filled with spacer.gif, <font>, &nbsp;, etc. In some cases, the gain is
over 50%.

(I had a cleanly coded page of about 6 paragraphs and

doing some quick NVU editing on it increased the file size of the from
3kb to 30kb!)

Use the markup cleaner in Nvu. In Nvu, Tools/markup cleaner.

As I said, I recommend HandCoder 0.3.4
http://fabiwan.kenobi.free.fr/HandCoder/
in Nvu (you may want to prefer KompoZer 0.77 here, over Nvu 1.0;
KompoZer has several bug fixes over Nvu 1.0) and then I recommend you
get the latest Tidy from
http://dev.int64.org/tidy.html

tidy-060405-exe.zip

and then link it to HandCoder 0.3.4
To understand all/each of Tidy's parameters (how to configure Tidy to
meet your goals), you must visit

http://tidy.sourceforge.net/docs/quickref.html

Use a strict DTD, not a transitional DTD: you first must choose the
doctype declaration carefully. Don't use the doctype as chosen in many
of your HTML webpages:

Using lowercase letters in a DOCTYPE
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html.en#doctype-case

I recomment HTML 4.01 strict.

I recommend
Using Web Standards in Your Web Pages
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html

For upgrading your webpages and validating your webpages:
http://arealvalidator.com/
If you handcode as many webpages as you say you have for so many years,
then you certainly won't mind spending some $25US dollars on a fine,
excellent true SGML validator like "A real validator". It works offline
and can validate a batch of documents.

Gérard

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=]

tracymar55 wrote :

I've been handcoding html for 12 years and have over 1500 pages on my
websites, but in the past year ran my pages through a variety of
editors in order to some quick touchups and now my code is disastrous.

What you may be looking for after all is Tidy (see my other post in this
thread for how to get its latest version). Tidy is good at first
addressing many issues in webpages: the best thing to do when tackling
an awful webpage is to run Tidy, then validate the webpage with a true
SGML validator (e.g. http://validator.w3.org/)

Gérard

 

[Toby Inkster]

I've been handcoding html for 12 years and have over 1500 pages on my
websites

You don't need a clean HTML editor. You need a CMS. Take some time to move
your content onto a decent management system -- and yes, it *will* take
time -- but the amount of time it will *save* you will make it more than
worthwhile.

 

[wayne]

You don't need a clean HTML editor. You need a CMS. Take some time to move
your content onto a decent management system -- and yes, it *will* take
time -- but the amount of time it will *save* you will make it more than
worthwhile.

And you can copy the text and paste into the CMS editing windows.

--
Wayne
http://www.glenmeadows.us
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes religion.
—Steven Weinberg

 

[tracymar55]

A belated thank you for your responses. It's going to take a long time
to undo the damage that resulted from relying on quickie editors the
past few years (and now NVU - and I've discovered that my copy is
corrupted as it generates often 100 or so more words of code wit h no
content except the same tags repeated over and over) but I appreciate
your suggestions and am checking some of them out.
Tracy

 

[ato_zee]

A belated thank you for your responses. It's going to take a long time
to undo the damage that resulted from relying on quickie editors the
past few years

Editors don't do much checking, validators are needed for that.
Handwritten code stands a chance of generating fewer errors,
and most hand coded errors are easier to find than with
editor generated code. You tend to forget to close tags
when you should have, etc.
Editors tend to generate bloated code, mostly from using span
tags. Span is fine for some things but editors tend to over use
them.