Random thoughts:
Ben Francis ben@franci5.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
BlueFish:
It's also good in that you can tweak the tools a bit without too much work, if you're really writing XML instead. It's also bad in that it's GTK, so probably will become GTK2 if it hasn't already. It may not bother you, but I really hate GTK2.
Amaya:
This one is almost perfect on standards support (as you'd expect) and that's something that D***mw***er doesn't seem to come close on yet. It does sometimes crash on me when doing simple tasks, which is really painful for an editor today, and is a little overzealous at rewriting existing code.
Mozilla Composer:
I couldn't get this one to produce valid and working code when I tried. Has it improved?
[...] None of the editors I've seen have the advanced features for managing web sites that I'd like and I'm very much left to do things by myself - which is nice but time consuming.
It's not the job of an editor to shift files around. Do a job and do it well. Try a file manager, maybe either by copying to an FTP site (LUFS and AVFS may work properly one day, Emacs can open them, and I think gnome and KDE file managers can copy to FTP?), or a dedicated tool for it like xsitecopy.
Is WYSIWYG for the web even possible? There is still a lot of scope for differences, even with the latest CSS standards.
QEmacs looks a promising graphical HTML editor to me, but it's a very early version and not easy to drive yet.