Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

General discussion of development ideas and the approaches taken in the 3.x branch of phpBB. The current feature release of phpBB 3 is 3.3/Proteus.
Forum rules
Please do not post support questions regarding installing, updating, or upgrading phpBB 3.3.x. If you need support for phpBB 3.3.x please visit the 3.3.x Support Forum on phpbb.com.

If you have questions regarding writing extensions please post in Extension Writers Discussion to receive proper guidance from our staff and community.
code reader
Registered User
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:01 pm

Re: Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

Post by code reader »

jwxie wrote: Why so hash on picking this? Aren't we all referring "we" to everyone? Not just the developers? How many times has the phpBB team adapt the community's version and give credits to those who contrbute the code in their release? Always. I express my view solely based on the terrible experience with some of the editors.
I am suggesting that if we are going to just blindly use every feature they have, it would be really messy and unwise.
you are right. i apologize for the combative tone i took. it wasnot called for.
however, a statement like: "package X is a piece of s**t. we should develop our own" with little or no indication that the writer plans to actually *do* something to contribute is not very useful.
it may make sense when the subject is something covered by an existing *good* package, or when it is obvious and easy how to do it better, but when we are talking about a web-based wysiwig editor that knows how to squirt bbcode markup, statements like "we should" are not very helpful, IMO.

again, my confrontational tone was not called for, and for this i apologize.

and a tiny bit more to the point:
it is my opinion that the base package should carry a rudimentary editor (like the one i'm using to write this), and anything fancier should be left to add-ons/plugins/extensions/whatchamacallits.

peace.
jwxie
Registered User
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:38 am

Re: Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

Post by jwxie »

Hi, I did not mean that either, please also accept my apology if you also feel the same in the beginning.

Yeah. I suggested that because I tried to reflect the point that phpBB4 should meet the long request of make "rich-text editors" a default. The overall construction will be the decision of the developers and we as users and contributers may help them when the first development product is release

I will be glad, by then, to submit a proposal :lol: :lol:
User avatar
bantu
3.0 Release Manager
3.0 Release Manager
Posts: 557
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:22 am
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Contact:

Re: Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

Post by bantu »

An idea would be having an editor that produces valid BBcode. The editor would wrap around the BBcode parser. Not sure if there are already editors doing it properly. TinyMCE seems to be an HTML-only editor.
jwxie
Registered User
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:38 am

Re: Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

Post by jwxie »

Bantu, can you explain this a bit more? I am sorry if I sound dumb :lol:
An idea would be having an editor that produces valid BBcode. The editor would wrap around the BBcode parser
User avatar
ameeck
Registered User
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:43 pm
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

Post by ameeck »

jwxie wrote:Bantu, can you explain this a bit more? I am sorry if I sound dumb :lol:
An idea would be having an editor that produces valid BBcode. The editor would wrap around the BBcode parser
A visual editor that will generate valid BBCode instead of HTML like usual WYSIWIG editors.
Please think before you post.
ToonArmy
Registered User
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:31 pm
Location: Bristol, UK
Contact:

Re: Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

Post by ToonArmy »

At the end of the day we want to utilise code form other OSS projects when we can to reduce what we have to maintain. Simply rolling our own WYSIWYG editor is not a simple task and would take significant development time, but I believe it is something users would like to see and we should certainly investigate.
Chris SmithBlogXMOOhlohArea51WikiNo support via PM/IM
Image
bobtheman
Registered User
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:00 pm

Re: Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

Post by bobtheman »

bolverk wrote:
bobtheman wrote: Who makes the determination that phpbb should be, or continue to be "basic"...
phpBB, and based on all previous comments/videos/discussion I had seen my interpretation of version 4 was exactly that. The true value in version 4 was not that it would come packed with every feature ever conceived, rather it would be truly an open framework extensible so that although the core package was still lightweight and a basic bulletin board, the architecture of it would allow for true plug and play with regard to features. The best of both worlds, as minimalistic or as bloated as any particular person wanted. I have asked for clarification on this, because the answer to that will dictate whether version 4 is actually intended as such or not and if not I would rather know now before I spend any more time on something I would never use.
your correct, phpbb makes this determination, luckily phpbb includes the entire community and not just the elder conservative "team" of which i refer to.

bobtheman wrote:Basic doesn't me we continue to use dinosaur technology and claim that our prior experiences and likes supersede future requests.
"Basic" has nothing to do with the technology used, basic in this context refers to a basic feature set, the minimum functionality for a bulletin board to function as a bulletin board.
bobtheman wrote:Even though im not aware of what will or wont be included in core for phpbb4, i assure you there will be something that someone will argue isnt needed.
Not if the planning and design are successful.
Eric Raymond wrote:Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
-- this is very subjective

Thankfully this isnt the entire vision of the community. To claim that a wysiwyg editor, which would solve many issues we currently have with the included editor, is bloatware is ludicrous. Again we are running into members claiming superiority of what has been done in the past instead of offering viable solutions and improvements that would obviously improve functionality, stability, etc etc.

I disagree with reinventing the wheal, there are plenty of great editors that are open source already in full production, TinyMCE being one. Now, if there happens to be an issue that we run into, it would be much easier to suggest and maybe even contribute back to the development of said projects. This kills two birds with one stone.
User avatar
onehundredandtwo
Registered User
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:55 am

Re: Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

Post by onehundredandtwo »

As already explained, TinyMCE is a HTML WYSIWYG editor, not BBCode. If phpBB reintroducted HTML into the system, like in phpBB2, there would be bloat.

If phpBB wished to have a WYSIWYG editor in phpBB, they would have to build one themselves (unless there are BBCode WYSIWYG editors out there, which I doubt).
Need help preventing spam? Read Preventing spam in phpBB 3.0.6 and above
User avatar
Eelke
Registered User
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Bussum, NL
Contact:

Re: Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

Post by Eelke »

I don't exactly know how they do it, but at first glance this suggests TinyMCE also does bbcode: http://tinymce.moxiecode.com/examples/example_09.php

Of course, a challenge would be to get it to handle custom bbcodes as well...
jwxie
Registered User
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:38 am

Re: Wysiwyg TinyMCE implementation

Post by jwxie »

Eelke wrote:I don't exactly know how they do it, but at first glance this suggests TinyMCE also does bbcode: http://tinymce.moxiecode.com/examples/example_09.php

Of course, a challenge would be to get it to handle custom bbcodes as well...
I think they translate this back to HTML
Post Reply