Vlad, you are actually poised in an ideal place to inform us of such things. Thank you.
Please don't feel you can't compare Xstandard here. It's a great editor and the free version is more than adequate for most situations. The only reason I've avoided it to-date is a result of a wee Java bias I have. ;) Also, as you state, most of us are looking for a "no-install" solution. We're ever hopeful... -----Original Message----- From: Behalf Of Vlad I'm sure that some of you know that our company produces a standards-compliant editor, so I feel uncomfortable about saying this, but there is no way that FCKeditor is standards-compliant. I'm not saying this to get you to buy our product, because our editor is a plug-in and this thread is about in-browser editors. When someone makes claims that a tool is Web standards complaint and it's not, they are actually hurting the Web standards movement. To return to FCKeditor, these are just a few examples of why it's not standards-compliant (tests done in IE): 1. Generates invalid markup: Start with <p>Test</p> and then apply "Custom Bold" from the Styles menu. You get: <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"> <p>Test</p> </span> As you know, an inline element cannot contain a block element. 2. Generates semantically meaningless markup: Start with <p>Test</p> and apply formatting using the color picker and font selector. You get: <p><font face="Verdana" color="#ff0000" size="4">Test</font></p> 3. Generates deprecated markup. For example, create an anchor and you get: <a name="abc"></a> Regards, -Vlad ********************************************************* The CMS discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *********************************************************
