different window widths and font scales.

Pages can be displayed in many different forms and configurations:.

What's DreamWeaver like in this regard, for that matter? As for why WYSIWYG doesn't make sense for HTML, it's simple: I'm not sure if there happen to be any that do generate valid code. Kate | Talk 08:14, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC) Yes, there's no reason that a WYSIWYDG editor should necessarily produce invalid code. This whole section could be retitled as 'Why you shouldn't use HTML editors' and no-one would notice.

Makes no attempt to then suggest reasons that WYSIWYG editors could be useful.

Makes the dubious claim that 'every web browser has bugs'.

Cites 'web specialists' with no references.

Criticises them because the results don't look the same on every browser, without explaining why this should be considered a bad thing.

Criticises them because WYSIWYG 'doesn't make sense' for HTML (doesn't it? why not?).

Refers to 'old versions of frontpage' to support this.

Criticises them because they don't produce valid code (without noting that this isn't inherent in the concept of an editor).

With what, specifically, do you take issue? Andy Mabbett 07:58, (UTC) It starts with one neutral sentence describing what a WYSIWYG editor is, then one sentence saying they're easier to use. Can we just rip the whole thing out and start again? - Kate | Talk 03:41, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC) The discussion of WYSIWYG in this article is so horribly biased that I don't even know where to start. Reply to David's edit summary comment on the best way to mention FrontPage's code mangling, yes, I think it is better.

18 Image copyright problem with File:Macromedia HomeSite.png.

15 What does operating system support mean?.

6.1 issue of memory needed for programs.

Htmlpad code refrences