TinyMCE, FCKEditor, and tikiwiki syntax
TinyMCE, FCKEditor, and tikiwiki syntax
Posted:05 Jun 2007 (02:12 UTC)Hello all,
I have a few questions about all syntax format options on BW.
Thanks in advance for the info!
I have a few questions about all syntax format options on BW.
- I've read that allowing HTML can be a security risk on a site. What exactly is the risk?
- What's the difference between TinyMCE and FCKEditor? It looks to me as though TinyMCE has many more format options than FCKEditor. I only saw a few options for FCKEditor (like bold, italics, etc) Is one more secure?
- Do users tend to prefer the WYSIWYGs over tikiwiki syntax?
- Is it possible to convert existing wiki pages that were created in tikiwiki syntax to html?
- Is it possible to make a table of contents using one of the WYSIWYGs?
Thanks in advance for the info!
Re: TinyMCE, FCKEditor, and tikiwiki syntax
Posted:05 Jun 2007 (20:14 UTC){quote format_guid="tikiwiki" comment_id="8505" user="jeff"}
A majority of users will want WYSIWYG
A minority of users will want Wikipedia syntax.
If you find people who want Tikiwiki syntax, they are probably the Tikiwiki coders, and most probably they will prefer using Tikiwiki (:wink:)
I know Damian explained to me once why Tikiwiki syntax was superior, but, at a stastistically relevant rate, Tikiwiki syntax does not exist.
Anyway, working with WYSIWYG is always good for attracting users, of course. Many people will tell you it is the choice for the "less savvy", the "stupid", etc..... but I don't agree, because WYSIWIG is the good choice for people who want to concentrate on their content. I should never demand that a history professor knows this and that syntax, for instance.
- Do users tend to prefer the WYSIWYGs over tikiwiki syntax?
A majority of users will want WYSIWYG
A minority of users will want Wikipedia syntax.
If you find people who want Tikiwiki syntax, they are probably the Tikiwiki coders, and most probably they will prefer using Tikiwiki (:wink:)
I know Damian explained to me once why Tikiwiki syntax was superior, but, at a stastistically relevant rate, Tikiwiki syntax does not exist.
Anyway, working with WYSIWYG is always good for attracting users, of course. Many people will tell you it is the choice for the "less savvy", the "stupid", etc..... but I don't agree, because WYSIWIG is the good choice for people who want to concentrate on their content. I should never demand that a history professor knows this and that syntax, for instance.
Re: TinyMCE, FCKEditor, and tikiwiki syntax
Posted:07 Jun 2007 (00:52 UTC)There is a new feature in CVS to force allowing HTML for all users in tikiwiki format specifically for use when using fckeditor and tinymce. Security is not based at all in the editor so choose the one you like. Tinymce claims to have wider browser support but my testing does not bear this out. fckeditor at least does not load in browsers it does not support. There has also been some plugin work on fckeditor to make it integrate with Bitweaver better as mentioned above. There are however more "other" plugins for TinyMCE that we don't have installed in the distribution.
HTMLPurifier is a very new feature and still needs some kinks worked out but those changes are coming.
HTMLPurifier is a very new feature and still needs some kinks worked out but those changes are coming.
Page 1 of 1 1