New WYSIWYG editor: nicEdit

[Waldschwein]

Hello!

I created a new WYSIWYG WebsiteBaker module from nicEdit. http://nicedit.com/

What is the advantage of this?
- It is much smaller than most other editors like CKEditor, FCKEditor or TinyMCE. One single .js file that's 33kb in size - just the filebrowser is a bit bigger.
- WebsiteBaker is very easy itself. Not everybody likes the feature blown editors - nicEdit fits there quite good.
- It is licensed with MIT license.

What is included?
- The editor.
- An AJAX filebrowser plugin (veeery experimental, there is no guarantee it is secure!!!) for uploading images.

What is not included?
- There is no editor.css, less features as "the big ones", no exhaustive API (but there is one).


Please test the editor and let us know, how you like it.
The filebrowser has several problems with wb files (throws out some errors in E_NOTICE). So first I deactivated all checks from WB - so never use it live!

Yours Michael

[pcwacht]

Will test and give feedback

Was looking for a real small editor for frontend edit possibilities.

This could be the one... 


Or are there other real light editors out there wich could be used? Please answer only in PM , don't want to hijack this thread.

John

[Waldschwein]

Hello!

[Offtopic, because it's quite interesting I think...)

There is one here: http://www.websitebakers.com/pages/admin/admin-tools/wymeditor.php
But I don't like the concept of WYMeditor because it's not understandable for non-designer or non-programmer. There would be whizzywig and textile.
http://unverse.net/Whizzywig-web-based-rich-text-editor : Basically whizzywig is quite good for using, but quite a horror for programmers - something that could be an API but without any help, and you need too much code to change something. Also it has no plugin system.
http://textile.thresholdstate.com/ : Textile is no real WYSIWYG editor in fact, because it has no buttons and is only a PHP-class. I think textile is really good, but the problem is - you need to be a good PHP coder to make a module out of it that's useful (basically each textfield with three options: textile / XHTML / Preview).

For frontend possibilities I would use nicEdit or CKEditor with basic toolbar. There is a BBCode module for nicEdit, I will integrate it, because that could be interesting. But - there need to be filebrowser disabled. Filebrowser is right now too basic and unsecure you can use it.

Yours Michael

[tiesy]

It seems that there is´nt any further development on NicEdit for more than a year. Is it useful to make a new module with an older wysiwy-editor? If someone needs less functions in wysiwyg-areas, it´s easy to disable them e.g in fckeditor.

[Waldschwein]

Hello!

Well, as NicEdit works in most browsers and is quite easy to understand how it's written (even for me as non-developer) I don't think it's a bad idea to make a module out of it.
The basic idea behind making a module out of a basic editor is just that it's really small and fitting for most people.
Of course everybody can use FCKEditor (or better: CKEditor, I made a module with much help of others here, too), but at least they have 10-20 times more files and more size.
Basically my "dream" is a very extendable WYSIWYG-module with configuration inside WB backend (not file based) and several features people don't see but feel - but it would be a really big coding, and is right now not possible with WB.
I mean: History (there is a replacement right now), API for HTMLPurifier and similar, "fall-back editor" Textile.
I don't think several WYSIWYG editors are bad, because people can choose what they want. But there need to be in future the possibility every user can choose his favourite editor.

Yours Michael

[Stefek]

But there need to be in future the possibility every user can choose his favourite editor.

Hello Michael,
I don't think that this is a good Idea.
Different Editors generate different output and it can occur that UserA overwrites UserB's inputs.

Did you think about it?

I think the best editor for now is CKE.
Of course a Admin-Tool with further Settings would be great instead of a file based one... but this is just for comfort, not for feature richness.

Regards,
Stefek

[Waldschwein]

Hello!

Not with WYSIWYG history and HTMLpurifier.  But ok, perhaps it's too much.

Yours Michael

[Stefek]

Hello Michael,
History is for the WYSIWYG Module. Shouldn't be affected by the Editor.

And HTML purifier can be done on the fly with a FrontendFilter Plugin, if somebody really needs it.

 
Regards,
Stefek

[Waldschwein]

Hello!

Yes of course it's thought for the WYSIWYG module.

A new version 0.1.1 is available, that basically removes the filebrowser - it's too unsafe, even if it looks nice.
A new one will be coded.
Also the whole include.php was rewritten.

Version 0.1.2 is available, the filebrowser is back - but can not upload, rename and so on. People can use WB media for that.

Yours Michael