André van Toly wrote:
Hi Nico,
Op 10-jul-2006, om 16:50 heeft Nico Klasens het volgende geschreven:
Pierre van Rooden wrote:
To make things a bit easier for people to test: the wizard.xsl for
tiny_mce.
This assumes tiny_mce (as downloaded from the site) is employed in
its entirety under the mmbase/edit/wizard dir.
Okay, let's cnacel the vote and rething about a nice way to support
all these editors? Maybe by providing extended wizard.xsl files?
Maybe your right, but would that not be a lot of work that maybe is
not needed? What are your main reasons for choosing Xinha? I was a
bit put off by it when I tried to integrate it in some JSP editors I
was working on. Then someone pointed me to TinyMCE, since I had not
enough time to evaluate both I have I haven't looked any further.
I believe everybody agrees we should drop HTMLarea but I think it is
a better idea to choose one new one in stead of supporting several.
First, I like TinyMCE and many others too. It is used in many big (cms)
projects. TinyMCE is very well maintained at the moment. Why is took
Xinha? because it is the htmlarea code base. The code is cleaned up, but
is still is in the same files. It is not another editor it is still the
htmlarea only more stable. The code I have seen made more sense then the
old htmlarea version which had hacks on hacks. Migration to the xinha
editor is easier then to TinyMCE when you have custom code.
Providing both options might be a good start to let the users decide
which editor they like best. In Mambo, the admin user can decide which
editor will be used in the edit screens.
Nico
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
