Well, yes and no. Early word processors were quite buggy, and they had to produce postscript to send to a laser printer, postscript that no one ever had to edit in. And what you saw was not always what you got, but improvements were made and today we expect word processors to work flawlessly and postscript is a term only known by us old technical guys. I also remember when spreadsheets had one sheet per file and far fewer abilities (last century :0). Advanced features and perfection come with time.
FCKeditor's flaws are not only unsurprising they are to be expected. Its only been around a few years with an open source level of support (Thank you Frederico!). Yet its bugs are considered minor by our wiki users who rarely use wikitext. I guess my frustration comes from the fckeditor having just reached an acceptable level of performance only to see the effort to continue improving it dissolving, at least that is how it appears. As Churchill might have said, this is F/CKeditor's finest hour! Jim -----Original Message----- >I think the WYSIWYG problem for wikis is similar. A graphical front-end can >hide the complexity and encourage end-user adoption, but it also makes the >advanced features difficult to use (and too easy for end-users to break by >accident). I think it'll be a while before both audiences can be served >excellently. DanB -----Original Message----- From: Sullivan, James (NIH/CIT) [C] If the wysiwyg editor future is not resolved for Mediawiki soon I'm afraid we will be forced to move toward another wiki software, most likely commercial where wysiwyg has been around for years..... _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
