Re: [LogiLogi-list] WYSIWYG editor

(Below the question is asked in Dutch about whether we should use an
existing WYSIWYG, or whether one should be built from scratch. I sent
this reply to the list, as it might be interesting for others, and/or
for the record).

I have a slight preference for using an existing Open WYSIWYG over
implementing one ourselves. This for reasons of browser-compatibility
and collaboration on the maintenance of the editor. Of course the
chosen editor should be relatively lightweight, extendable, and last 
but not least it should also be possible to take out parts of it's
functionality.

I think it's best to first of all to allow basic textual styles (like
bold, centered, text-(background)-colors, superscript, titles, lists,
indentation) tables, and images and the like.

Another worthwile feature could be allowing people to add links from
images, and/or from parts of them. So one can make diagrams or models
and make parts it them clickable.

But preferably users should not be able to add random divs, javascripts,
or to change background-colors of tables. Also I think we should not
allow direct html-editing.

I haven't seen enough WYSIWYG editors to judge, but TinyMCE (plugins) 
and openWYSIWYG (simplicity) seem interesting.

If we put the WYSIWYG editor (and the link-adder/remover, as added part 
of it) in place, we can just as well drop Textile alltoghether, and 
store straight HTML (of course still without Logi-links inside the
text).

Wybo

> Hallo Wybo,
> 
> We hebben al wel eens eerder gesproken over een
> What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get editor op LogiLogi. Op dit moment zijn
> we even aan het verkennen wat de mogelijkheden hiervoor zijn. De
> belangrijkste keuze die moet worden gemaakt is: maken we gebruik van
> een standaardproduct of bouwen we iets "from scratch". Om hier de
> juiste keuze over te maken is het belangrijk om te weten welke
> functionaliteit deze WYSIWYG editor moet onderstenen. Gaat het
> alleen om basale functionaliteit (bold,cursief,underline,link maken)
> dan is de meest voordehandliggende keuze om het zelf te
> implementeren. Echter, als er meer functionaliteit nodig is dan is
> het misschien verstandiger om van een standaardproduct uit te gaan.
> 
> Zou je misschien kort je visie hierop willen geven?
> 
> Mvg,
> 
> Allan van Hulst
> 
> 

-- 

::Student:
- History, Informatiekunde (computer linguistics, IR, webtech) and Philosophy
- Member of the Center for Metahistory Groningen (http://www.rug.nl/let/cmg)

::Free Software and Open Source Developer:
- http://www.LogiLogi.org, Cumulative, shared commenting, publication and 
                           idea sharing: Where insight comes together...
- ComLinToo, a computational linguistics toolset written in Perl
- Lake (LogiLogi.org Make), a make-replacement using makefiles in pure C++

::Being:
- In the world, wavy hair, go figure (http://nl.logilogi.org/HomE/WyboWiersma)