HTML quality matters more than you think
An editor that produces clean, valid HTML saves you years of debt. A poor editor generates bloated markup, uses deprecated tags, embeds inline styles, or leaves trailing spaces. When you need to migrate later—to a new platform, a new editor, or a new framework—clean HTML ports cleanly. Messy HTML requires scrubbing.
What to evaluate
HTML output
Ask for a sample—paste Word content, rich formatting, images, and tables. Does the output use `
` tags? `
`? Semantic tags? Is it minified or readable? Can you customize it?
API surface
You'll need to read the editor's value, set it from code, and respond to change events. Good editors expose these as simple methods. Avoid editors where you have to dig into the DOM or rely on undocumented properties.
Paste handling
Word documents bring a ton of garbage markup. Does the editor strip it automatically? Can you customize cleanup? This is where most user frustration lives.
Licensing and support
Will the vendor still support it in 5 years? Do you own the code or license it? Can you customize it? Is there source code access if you need to debug?
Mobile and accessibility
Does it work on tablets? Can screen readers navigate it? Keyboard-only users need full access to toolbar features.
Red flags
- Editor hasn't been updated in 2+ years
- No sample HTML output or API docs
- Requires specific framework versions (locks you in)
- Expensive per-user licensing (hard to scale)
- No way to customize keyboard shortcuts or toolbar
- Documentation is sparse or forum-only
Try before you commit
Get a trial license (most vendors offer 30 days), build a small test form, and copy some real user data into it. Paste Word docs. Upload images. Check the HTML in the database. If the output doesn't look right at this stage, it won't improve later.
Learn more: Cute Editor for .NET and Rich Text Editor examples show clean HTML output and extensive APIs.