HTML Editors in Linux - A Comparison

Martin Sommer

• Introduction
• The Editors
• WebMaker
• August
• WebDesigner
• CoffeeCup
• Quanta
• Bluefish
• Conclusion
• Links

Introduction

More and more people want their own Web pages. For those who want to only create a small private page, WYSIWYG editors are generally sufficient, as well as those editors that let users enter text and edit it as if they were using a word processing program. In addition, a variety of tools are available to fine-tune the Web page, that is to say, wizards for tables, images, links, forms, lists, etc. Using these tools can yield quite impressive results. While knowledge of HTML is not required to use these editors and tools, such knowledge is nonetheless helpful.

Widely known WYSIWYG HTML editors, however, are so far available outweighing for Windows, such as, for example, Netscape's Composer, which is a relatively limited tool. Microsoft's Frontpage, NetObjects' Fusion, as well as GoLive from Adobe or Macromedia's Dreamweaver are large-scale applications that provide a WYSIWYG editor, along with a wealth of additional functions up to and including content management systems. The options for Linux are limited: Netscape Composer, which works in Linux, and the HTML editors included in the office packages (e.g. StarOffice and Applix). However, the code produced by these tools is rather messy.
The selection of large-scale applications is quite small and the new IBM Homepage Builder 4.0 is the only one worth listing here. This editor and its three integrated programs (Web Animator, WebArt Designer and FTP client) provide quite a wide selection of features. The downside is that a free test version is available for 60 days only. The program itself must then be purchased at the price of USD 69.

Still, those who know HTML and/or create professional Web pages like to use a text editor when needed while working on the Web pages. The reasons for this preference are primarily related to the code. First, a WYSIWYG editor's HTML code is either somewhat or totally confusing. Second, refining the pages or the code is much easier with a text editor. In addition, the code written by the user will remain substantially more transparent for the author. With complex pages it is absolutely essential that the author understand all of the code and its structure. Thus, I will introduce some of the most well known HTML editors for Linux below.

Naturally, Linux hard-liners use only vi or emacs / xemacs. Those who want to write pure text without an HTML wizard, or those who would like to work somewhat more intuitively will use a simpler editor such as KEdit, KWrite, or the rather powerful NEdit editor. Still, Linux also has a good selection of editors for those who prefer working with an actual HTML editor, because they may not know all tags by heart or because they want help with special characters, tables, stylesheets or other Web-related functions. While none of these editors have a scope of functions comparable to Allaire's Homesite - one of the most powerful HTML text editors available for Windows only - the Linux editors strive to imitate Homesite's functionality in many ways.

The Editors

In contrast to Homesite and CoffeeCup, all editors described below have been made available under the GPL and are available for free. Originally, CoffeeCup was available for Windows only, but it has been ported to Linux. The shareware version (30 days) can be downloaded from the Internet. While CoffeeCup is by far the coolest of all editors in terms of appearance and functions, the commercial version is priced at USD 49. (No tests were run to find out if the shareware version remains operational after 30 days :-)). It remains to be seen if any Linux users will ever spend money on an HTML editor for Linux when better editors than CoffeeCup, such as, for example, Quanta or Bluefish, are available for free.

The following editors were tested: WebMaker, August, WebDesigner, Coffeecup, Quanta+ and Bluefish. The sequence above roughly reflects the scope of functions for these editors, starting with the fewest functions. Galway and Erwin are additional editors we planned to test as well. However, with respect to the installation, those editors turned out to be so unmanageable (missing packages, others needed to be downloaded and installed, missing tar files, etc.) that they could not be installed or tested. Naturally, we can also not recommend them.
The following criteria were used to test functionality and scope of functions:

• Stability
• Intuitiveness and practicality
• Scope and quality of functions, including
  • Tables
  • Lists
  • Frames
  • Forms
  • General tags
  • CSS
  • Other languages (Java script, XML, PHP, WML)
  • Syntax highlighting
  • Preview
  • Special functions / Cool stuff

WebMaker is a KDE application and is by far the weakest of all the editors tested in terms of functional scope. The small size, however, also yields advantages. The application can be downloaded quickly from the net and it is well organized, which means that even beginners will find this editor manageable. On the other hand, the editor has very few wizards, so that even absolute novices must have a rather firm knowledge of HTML code. There is no internal preview feature and the path name for the external browser must be entered in its entirety.
Webmaker is stable. It did not crash once during the test phase. The editor has a structure similar to Quanta, but with substantially fewer functions. There is a table wizard and there are support functions to assist with font selection, forms and lists. In addition, there are some wizards with a somewhat unusual appearance (for Java script, CSS and for maps).
WebMaker uses buttons to simulate frame tool bars and one script tool bar. Unfortunately, clicking the buttons causes an empty bar to appear. Browsing the directory structure is quite a slow process. While a help tool exists, it is so minimal that the keyword one is searching for cannot be found most of the time. Thus, some functions cannot be explored and clicking on them does not appear to have any effect.
The "Go to line" function doesn't make sense, since there is no way to view line numbers. It is remarkable that the editor includes a function that lets a user click on tags in order to automatically write them in lowercase (conforming to XHTML and WML). This is a function not provided by many larger editors. Another positive feature with respect to XHTML is that all (!) tags the user clicks on get closing tags, including <dt>, <dd> and <li>.

The presentation of August looks and feels unusual. This editor also lacks some basic functions while it features a few unusual ones. There are no wizards for frames, forms or CSS, while the table wizard is quite good and can be used intuitively. The support functions for lists or importing images are also excellent.

Surely, the most unusual features are the template function to create templates for use with different documents and a tool for defining your own tags. While this latter function is most helpful for creating xml documents, strangely enough there are no functions to make the documents XHTML-compatible, such as lower caps or closing all tags. Another unusual feature is the fact that every button has two functions. Clicking the left mouse button activates one of the functions, while clicking the right mouse button activates the other.

Unfortunately, like several other editors, August has no internal preview function, which means that the user must always wait for Netscape to restart. Of course, this is particularly annoying under Linux, since the lock file check always appears prior to startup. Regrettably, this is the case with other editors as well.

August has a very unusual feature, even though users are not aware of it: It was written in Tcl/Tk, which makes the editor pretty much platform-independent and also facilitates the installation process. Users merely need to unzip the zip files and August is ready for use without any kind of installation process.

WebDesigner has a very efficient, business-like appearance, starting with its plain black & white startup logo. One positive consequence of this efficiency is the fact that users can very quickly gain an overview of the editor's functions. The buttons are unambiguous and the tabs for the wizards are clearly organized.

A narrow frame at the bottom of the window is another remarkable feature. Users have the option to display tag help information in this frame. On the downside, deactivating this help function does not cause this frame to disappear and it cannot be removed by mouse click or through configuration. This means that the size of the edit window is always reduced by the size of this frame.

At first glance, WebDesigner appears to have a wide variety of functions. It provides such welcome features as internal preview and Web project management. Finally - unlike the other editors - WebDesigner also displays line numbers, even if only for the line the user is currently working on.
Upon closer scrutiny, however, WebDesigner's shortcomings quickly become apparent. The wizards behind the tabs merely produce tags, without explanations and intuitive input options. Consequently, those who do not know HTML cannot use this editor to create a Web page. The tag help information displayed in the bottom frame is limited to those options available for the respective tag. Moreover, the help information is displayed only if the tag is inserted by mouse click, and not when the user writes the tag manually. One also cannot help but wonder why the editor comes with its own click-start terminal ("WebDesigner Shell") while it lacks much more important functions.

The editor does not let the user set the previously described tag format options required for XHTML and WML. WebDesigner does not have the fundamental Undo function, that is, the option to reverse the most recent command. Needless to say, this can have quite fatal consequences. In addition, the editor's configuration options are very limited and help functions are quite simply non-existent.

As the only commercial product on this list, CoffeeCup is undoubtedly the most eccentric editor among those tested. Many buttons have a different appearance than they usually do and are arranged in a peculiar fashion (massed at the top and vertically along the right side of the screen). Moreover, several buttons have unusual functions and almost all of them have their own wizards. However, the user cannot discern the logic behind the spatial arrangement of the buttons. It is obvious that CoffeeCup's developers wanted to be especially cool. For example, the wizard buttons are not labeled Ok and Cancel, as is customary, but cool and No Way instead.

A positive feature is that several wizards are quite detailed, such as, for examples, the frames wizard, which most of the other editors lack. There are even two table wizards. One is quick and the other one is detailed, but both are practical and easy to understand. The configuration options are quite scarce and the edit window's foreground and background colors - which can be selected by the user - are so bright that surely no user will ever change them (the default setting is b/w) ;-).

However, CoffeeCup's true advantages are its special functions. Apparently, the programmers adhered to the following motto: The editor can surely lack a few essential functions, as long as there are enough cool features available.
For example, this editor does not feature functions such as XHTML conformity, a CSS wizard, or the pretty much essential syntax highlighting function (the only test editor missing this function). Also, the editor is not very stable and crashes quite frequently.
Instead, it features a variety of highly esoteric functions:

• A number of practical scripts (Java script, DHTML and Perl), as well as some extensive programs such as a search engine or guest book that the user can paste into his own documents with a mouse click (and the programs work!)
• A sound gallery to integrate sounds and music in the home page.
• An overwhelmingly large number of possible and impossible tags and special characters, all of which can be inserted with a mouse click.

Finally, I want to point out the program's help functions - by far the best among all of the tested editors. Unfortunately, these help functions are only available online.

Another well-known HTML editor is the KDE application Quanta. Quanta's appearance resembles that of Webmaker, including some identical functions, since Quanta, like Webmaker, was specially written for KDE with Qt.

Like WebMaker, Quanta is very intuitive and an editor that is easy to use. Quanta, however, has many more functions and wizards. It provides competent wizards for tables, lists and forms, but not for frames. The diverse options for receiving help information about respective tags is a very welcome, if confusing feature:
If the cursor is placed on a tag, the user has three options to get help information about this tag:

• F4 key: Returns attributes with input fields. The names do not correspond to HTML syntax, but are rather more intuitive names (e.g., for Body: Background instead of bgcolor). Thus, this function is most helpful for users who don't know HTML.
• Shift-F1: The (excellent) help manual about the respective tag opens in full screen format. An inexperienced user immediately encounters one difficulty: He may not be able to exit this help page. The directory tree view must be activated (from the View menu or the main tool bar) and the user can then click on the Files tab to return to normal view. If the user's file is displayed in full screen view without the directory tree, he will despair as he searches in vain for his file.
• Alt-"Cursor down": This option provides the user with the best tag help information, which can also be found in the Edit -> Link Properties menu. This tag help information is almost comparable to that provided by Homesite. Here, the user can select all tag options, which are then immediately displayed in the document. These help functions are most useful for advanced users who know what tag parameters mean.

It is primarily Quanta's instability that compares negatively to other editors. The program is prone to crashing. Additional small bugs can be found in the details. For example, starting the editor quite often causes stubborn error messages that are completely extraneous. Also, during startup, Quanta often automatically reopens files that were previously open - but not the most recently opened one(s). Instead, the editor seems to entirely go by its own preferences. While this is hardly disruptive, it is nonetheless quite puzzling.
The user is also left wanting for several wizards, such as, for example, CSS or Java script wizards. Small script and style sheet help functions are hidden behind the F4 tag help command.

Unfortunately, there is a small bug in one excellent Quanta feature - a bug that plagues none of the other editors: Automatic character replacement during composition is a most helpful feature, especially in German-speaking regions, where the special characters ä, ö, ü and ß are extremely common. Unfortunately, Quanta occasionally converts lowercase ü's and ä's into their uppercase counterparts after a restart. The user must then go to the trouble of manually changing the settings in the Settings -> General Settings-> Keys menu.

On the positive side, Quanta stands out as an editor with an extremely useful external preview function that can be turned on and off quite rapidly. In addition, Quanta provides the best Netscape previews, since it is the only editor that always uses the same Netscape window instead of restarting Netscape every time. Regrettably, it is not apparent how Quanta manages to do this, since the external browser cannot be selected and appears to be automatically located.

Moreover, Quanta has a project management feature and a working FTP client. The editor also has good HTML documentation, which is located in the directory tree window under the Doc tab (it can also be activated with Shift-F1 if the cursor is placed on a tag). The documentation was created by the Web Design Group. The actual Quanta help functions are rather mediocre by comparison, but at least they are available offline. The editor also features partial XHTML conformity, since users can click on tags to write tags and their options in non-capitalized form. <br /> and <hr />, however, must be entered manually.

The configuration options are quite extensive as well. One function in particular can be truthfully described as brilliant: The Vertical Selection function that lets users select and then delete blocks of text or empty spaces, independent of existing lines. This is a function provided by none of the other editors. Even some powerful word processing programs lack this function.

Finally, we get to the editor that was also used to write this article. Bluefish is by far the most powerful among the HTML editors we tested. It is probably the most potent editor for Linux in general.
Bluefish shines because of a whole range of features that make it stand out in comparison to the other editors. Its stability is excellent and it leaves almost nothing to be desired. The editor's functionality, however, is efficiently practical, and it could be improved even further by adding unusual special functions such as those offered by CoffeeCup or August. While the editor has smaller script snippets, such as, for example, for a mouse-over effect, these snippets are merely pasted into the text without explanation, so that those without Java script knowledge cannot use them.

Compared to the other editors, the configuration options are enormous. Bluefish has project management tools and more wizards than any of the other editors. There are wizards for CSS, Java script, WML and meta-tags, as well as extensive references to SSI, RXML, PHP and PHP4. The wizard for inserting thumbnails is particularly well designed.

The following list consists of a selection from the numerous configuration options in the Options -> Preferences menu:

• Syntax highlighting (which users can select themselves; Quanta is the only other editor with this option!)
• List and paragraph closing tags
• Lower caps tags
• XHTML syntax can be selected
• External HTML syntax checker and spell checker can be selected

Other successful functions include:

• The option to load Web pages as source text directly into the editor from the Internet.
• The speedy specification of user-selected shortcuts for all functions: Move the mouse to the desired function, leave it there and then enter the desired shortcut command. This shortcut is now available everywhere and can be edited just as easily when needed.
• Replace special: Automatic replacement of, for example, all iso 8859-1 characters with the corresponding HTML code (e.g., replacement of ä, ö, ü, ß with &auml;, &ouml;, &uuml;, &szlig;).

In spite of all the praise, a few minor shortcomings should be pointed out. For example, Bluefish provides the Go to line function, even though there is no line number display of any kind. Also, some variants of version 0.6 which are distributed in the Web lack an internal preview function. This is a bothersome shortcoming, because Netscape's preview function always reloads Netscape, just like most other editors. As we have previously mentioned, this can take quite some time due to the lock file check. Moreover, despite its many functions, Bluefish is hardly suitable for the novice user, since few functions are intuitive and the user must be familiar with HTML syntax. The help functions are quite useful, despite the fact that they are available only on the net.

Conclusion

The advanced user, who wants quick results and writes most of his HTML text by hand, is still well advised to use WebMaker, despite its small number of functions. Still, he will quite likely prefer to work with Bluefish, since this editor does have a few additional functions to facilitate quick and effective Web page design. However, the most pragmatic and easy to use editor is Quanta, which stands out primarily due to its competent and, most of all, speedy preview options. This pleasant feature is mitigated only by the editor's instability and the small bugs detailed above.

Possibly, these shortcomings were fixed in the new version Quanta+ 2.0. A pre-release version is available for download at Sourceforge. Improvements in the new version focused on highlighting, configuration options and the already excellent preview functions. Some new functions were added. Unfortunately, according to some of the forums, there are still problems related to configuring and compiling the program. However, the response from users who successfully installed the program is very positive. Thus, a report about the new Quanta version is slated to be published right here, as soon as the new version has been tested.

Overall, we conclude that Quanta and Bluefish are the best HTML editors for Linux. Once the deficiencies listed above are fixed and the scope of functions is expanded even further, these two editors are the only ones with the potential of measuring up to Homesite in the medium term.

Some Web editors are also standard components of different distributions. For example, WebMaker, Quanta and Bluefish are packaged with SUSE LINUX and can be installed with YaST.