None

About *any* other editor is more efficient then NotePad. If you are willing to take a steep learning curve for getting a huge reward in performance, consider learning the vim editor:

--
:wq
^X^Cy^K^X^C^C^C^C

I suspect you would get a better response by asking the question on a new group related to WEB development, but here is one to be getting on with:

Maybe

would be worth a look also.

--
Regards,
Richard.

+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org
A free real time kernel for 8, 16 and 32bit systems.

+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
An IEC 61508 compliant real time kernel for safety related systems.

The first thing you should learn is that ALL CODE SHOULD BE **VALIDATED**.

*Don't* produce this kind of idiocy: 2/inx.html

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=3Dcache:Jz64BiCqp4UJ:developer.mozilla.org/en/=docs/index.php/title=3DStandards-Compliant_Authoring_Tools%26printable=3Dye=s+validate+compliance+DreamWeaver+*-*-*-Microsoft-Word-*-invalid-HTML+requi=re.extra.debugging+Frontpage+NVu+*-*-*-*-*-*-FrontPage-*-specific-extension=s+HTML-*-Kit+GoLive+HTML.Tidy+Standards-*-Compliant-Authoring-Tools (Nvu is free.) [1] Note well the term "Standards-Compliant". Do click on "validate" before leaving that page.

Related to that, you should also learn to STAY FAR AWAY FROM MICROSOFT TOOLS which **claim** to produce HTML. http://66.102.9.104/search?q=3Dcache:SjPK8xdtxa0J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mic=rosoft_FrontPage+FrontPage.Server.Extensions+List.of.HTML.editors+Compariso=n=2Eof.WYSIWYG.*.editors+non-standard.HTML.code+crashing+*-*-require-*-*-*-=*-*-*-*+Privacy+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-installed-on-the-*-*-server+deductible+critic=ism.of.*+IIS.Extensions+Disclaimers+nonprofit+buries.HTML.properties

As noted, this group is FAR from the proper place to ask web developer questions:

masters+HTML-Editors . . [1] The latest bug-fix version of Nvu is called KompoZer (A fork of the project).

Teco.

You're off topic. Go elsewhere.

pete

--
pete@fenelon.com "how many clever men have called the sun a fool?"

I suspect that 99% of people don't really care what the validator says, as long as the site renders correctly in the majority of browsers. Take google for instance:

- Failed, 68 errors

Yahoo? 33 errors. Out of Alexa's top 10 websites traffic-wise, only 3 pass the validator (MSN, craigslist, and Wikipedia).

Cheers,

Al

renders correctly in the majority of browsers.

Al Borowski wrote:

There's a term for that. See "idiocy" (above). A standards-compliant page WILL display in ANY browser.

That is a SECONDARY check for NON-standards-compliant whatever. If you want your page to *look* the same in non-compliant browsers AFTER you have achieved a standards-compliant page, you may have some extra work ahead of you. (Some developers put the number at an additional 100% of time spent; dealing with Micros~1's broken browser can be A PAIN.)

OTOH, there is NO guarantee that checking your page with a few current browsers will certify it as rendering under ALL browsers; that is why VALIDATORS exist.

Another profession has a saying: "Bad examples make for bad law." Here's what you get when you wander off into "proprietary HTML": http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:m2XM97fMGMIJ:

*-screwed-these-*-up+*-*-broken-links-everywhere+Large-sections-*-*-disappeared+community+promoting+*-didn%27t-support-*-proprietary-*-*-*-*-*-*+only-includes-Netscape-*+mutual+table-layout-images-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+it.did.not+*-*-*-*-incorrect-content-type-header

Here's what you see if you do things properly:

--and this page will work with ANY browser.