When I added the HTML editing to RoundCube, I did a relatively thorough inventory and analysis of the available JavaScript WYSIWYG text field replacements. If I remember correctly, at that time FCK wasn't quite at the same maturity level as TinyMCE, and TinyMCE satisfied all of the constraints. If we had to make a choice today, it's possible that FCK might lead the pack, but at this point TinyMCE is the baseline unless there's a compelling reason to expend the effort to switch it out.
Are there specific things you like about FCK relative to TinyMCE?
On Thu, 22 May 2008 20:03:32 +0300, wrote:
Horváth Balázs написа:
HTML composer: Did you consider using Fckeditor? I checked the archives and I saw that there was a discussion about that in Oct 2005, and the conclusion was that the goal is to support plugging any editor with plugins API, what's being developped. What's the status of this? I used both TinyMCE and FCKeditor and I prefer FCK.
JS interface: Did you consider using a JS framework? I've been working quite much with prototype and after that JQuery. My personal preference is JQuery, based on experiences. Rewriting would be a big job, but could be done continuously, during the process both packages would exist. There are some benefits, I think even the code would become smaller, and pre-created interface plugins could be used. (And the packed version is just 16k.)
What do you think?
balázs
A decision has already been made to move to jQuery.
Speaking about the HTML editor - it's kinda question of preference, I personally like TinyMCE and especially Xihna, FCK has been so much trouble on some older browsers (like IE 5), at least in the past. Probably the devs have strong arguments for choosing TinyMCE, though.
Kind regards, Doichin _______________________________________________ List info: http://lists.roundcube.net/dev/