Op 11-jul-2006, om 10:31 heeft Nico Klasens het volgende geschreven:
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.
And that would be very easy and can be made configurable?
I believe that all of the EditWizard configuration lives in either /
mmbase/edit/wizards/jsp/settings.jsp or in
org.mmbase.applications.editwizard.Config, is it not? Would it be
hard to move all configuration, including the settings which HTML-
editor you prefer and where it lives in your webapp, to some config
file in modules?
---André
--
André van Toly
MMBase development & Userfriendly webdesign
W: http://www.toly.nl
M: +31(0)627233562
------------------------------------------------------------------
~~<<>>~~
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
