User talk:Skcommunity/Draft rewrite Website builder

Thank you for your email. I apologize for not getting back to you earlier.

Your current draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Skcommunity/Draft_rewrite_Website_builder&oldid=396122051 ) looks like a major improvement, assuming that you have your facts straight.

A few possibly issues:


 * 1) I would consider it relevant to mention (without any detail) the controversy around WYSIWYG for HTML.
 * 2) I am not certain that we need to differ between JavaScript and ECMAScript.
 * 3) Concerning "extra" functionality (e.g. version control), it may be relevant to speak of or compare with IDEs. Notably, some IDEs have considerable support for HTML, JavaScript, whatnot, on a source-code basis, and comparing a specialized HTML editor (with or without WYSIWYG) with a "vanilla" text editor might give the wrong impression. In addition, the "better" text editors (e.g. Vim and Emacs) tend to have direct or indirect support of their own.
 * 4) I would not speak of "acceptance", but e.g. "use" in "Following increased availability of broadband internet (citation needed), as well as the widespread acceptance of JavaScript and Adobe Flash, online website builders started to appear in the early 2000s.": The former has at least two problems, namely that it is not clear from whom the acceptance came and that the acceptance is disputable among users (mainly) for Flash and (to a lesser degree) JavaScript.

Michael Eriksson (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)