In a discussion on MicrosoftFrontPage, someone asked: ''But, I wonder: what about HomeSite?? HoTMetaL Pro? PageMill?? Trellix?'' 

Which HTML editor should you use?
----
I've tried a few graphical HTML editors on projects but usually regretted it because eventually you have too much content to manage and design changes become too expensive.

One of the problems with graphical HTML editors is they completely munge together content, presentation, and behaviour (a la ModelViewController). If they provide some kind of separation they do it in a limited proprietary way, such as with MicrosoftFrontPage themes.

I think HTML (CSS, JavaScript etc.) should be written by hand in something like Notepad. Keep it simple and maintainable with the expectation that sooner or later some kind of program is going to be reading content from a database and emitting the HTML.

You could think about starting with the 'database' straight away and marking up your content in XML (ExtensibleMarkupLanguage), again in something like Notepad. You can batch generate your HTML offline if your site is simple and static. You'll be thankful down the track when things start to change. (The idea here is related to that discussed in AlmostFreeText.)

Also, unless you're a graphic designer you'll probably end up with a better visual design if you stick to simple HTML that you can write by hand.

That's my experience anyway. -- FabianLeGayBrereton
----
OK, that's fine, but in a lot of cases it's not really appropriate. I've been using this "hand-edited" approach for years now, and from time to time I have a look at HTML editors to see where the state of the art has got to. How about I limit the range of this question a little, to a case common to a ''lot'' of personal Web sites if:
	* you are using a (minimum cost) public web host with no significant "features", just FTP upload and HTTP download
	* your site has no particular growth plan, but is edited as and when you get a few hours to tinker with it
	* you want your site to look nice, but be usable on all (or almost all) browsers
	* you understand HTML, but are fed up with all that cellpadding and manual matching of </td></tr> stuff
	* the site has more pages now than you thought it would originally, in several subdirectories, with both shared and separate graphics
	* you sometimes want to change the whole "look and feel" of the site
	* you sometimes want to reorganize the files and directories
which HTML or Web site editors might actually be useful?

''Do you really need a Web site editor? Several of the criteria above -- particularly those that are specific to site editors, rather than HTML editors -- strike me as WebSiteMaintenanceSmell''''''s. For example, reorganizing files & directories carries the penalty of breaking inbound links from other sites. Preserving the site's ''physical'' structure and reorganizing the site's ''logical'' structure gives most of the benefits without the penalties.''

''Other points above are covered in RefactoringHtml, including changing the site's look (use CascadingStyleSheets) and automating HTML generation (BoredomIsaSmell). I HaveThisPattern, and have been able to manage a 300+ page static site with a few simple Perl scripts, sftp, and a TextEditor with a good multifile search and replace function. And that's despite the fact that I've rearranged the site's logical layout while preserving URLs.''

Yeah, I need an HTML editor -- if it does WYSIWYG editing and previewing. MacromediaDreamweaver is probably the best thing I've seen for this, but at $500 per seat it's kinda pricey right now. Guess I'll have to stick with CSS and hand editing until I get enough site maintenance work to justify the purchase.
----
I'm currently looking for a WikiBasedHtmlEditor. -- FridemarPache
----
''I've been playing a little, in my spare time, with an HtmlModeler. If you find something like this interesting, I'd love to hear your thoughts. -- TomStambaugh''
----
If you use a Mac: use BbEdit. You'll be glad you did.
----
What about MozillaBrowser?  It allows you to edit pages WYSIWYG.
----
Re "I think HTML (CSS, JavaScript etc.) should be written by hand in something like Notepad", above -- I'm surprised at how often I've heard people suggest Notepad for editing HTML.  I prefer writing my HTML by hand too, but seriously, ''Notepad''?  Even if you disregard some of the fancier editor features that are available, like automatic indentation and syntax highlighting, there's still a lot to be said for being able to indent a bunch of lines at one time.  Or being able to undo more than one step.
*That's why I always replace Notepad with Meta''''''Pad.  I follow the instructions on the site and install a renamed Meta''''''Pad as Notepad.  I have tried all sorts of HTML editors and pads in the past, but my fave is still Meta''''''Pad.''