As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
I've been using the FCK Editor for several of my client sites in the past. Recently due to some new browser security updates(I'm assuming) some of the functionality is now breaking.
I was planning on updating those sites to the most recent version, but sometimes I think the FCK is overly complex and tends to confuse my clients more than it helps them out.
What other HTML WYSIWYG (if there is such a thing) are good out there. A few of the items I really like about the FCK that I would want to keep:
Drop Down Styles based on CSS
Auto Inserted HTML templates
Auto Inserted HTML snippets
File uploader / browser
Thanks
Aloha Editor is a modern alternative to TinyMCE and CKEditor. It allows you to have common textbox style WYSIWYG Editor as replacement for textarea, but it also allows you to editing most of the DOM elements directly. This makes real WYSIWYG possible. It supports a lot a fancy new HTML5 and CSS3 functions.
Aloha Editor comes with a repository API, an autocomplete for file/images/other objects and a file/image/other object browser.
http://www.alohaeditor.org/
To get those features you're most likely going to end up with a solution that's just as bloated as FCKEditor. radEditor is the most bloated piece of crap I've ever been forced to work with. The latest version is not any better despite their claims of improvement. Cute is OK but costs money. YUI looks nice but I haven't played with it enough to know how extensible or fast it is.
The last versions of FCK (2.6+) have been much better. The dialogs are no longer popup windows so they work in more browsers. The plugin model is better than the others I have tried and it's easy to configure in one place (I may be wrong but I think TinyMCE requires the config embedded with every instance). They all generate less-than-ideal markup but FCK does the best job, especially in the latest versions. Customize the FCK toolbars down to just the essentials and I think your clients will like it a lot more. Mine do.
Yahoo Editor from Yahoo YUI
UPDATE:
Rolling up the other answers:
TinyMCE
CuteSoft
and, of course, Markdown which is the one you used to type the question in.
TinyMCE is my personal favorite. You'd have to shoehorn the rest in, however.
The next generation FCKEditor is available now in the form of CKEditor. I recently converted an application to use that having previously used FCKEditor and found it fairly straight forward.
CuteEditor (commercial versions for ASP, ASP.NET & PHP)
Are you talking controls that are free or paid? If paid, the only one I use is Telerik's radEditor. Ridiculously flexible and you can turn off basically anything and everything and make it look however you want (i.e. it's skinnable).
If you're already using jquery, then you may consider using markItUp! which is implemented as a jquery plug-in. It could be lighter than other editors with similar feature set which doesn't make use of any framework.
It supports HTML, Textile, Wiki Syntax, Markdown, BBcode. You can also use your custom syntax.
http://markitup.jaysalvat.com/
You might consider the Rich Text Editor in Flex. (Or Silverlight, for that matter.) It's a bit more of a controlled environment.
netEditr.com is based on TinyMCE as the default WYSIWYG XHTML designer. Go have a test run and see if it fits your needs.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am looking for a good editor for a Symfony2 project and other projects. I really don't need the fancyness or thousands of scripts loading, etc. I personally prefer easy and clean structured IDE - that's why I actually always tend to close Eclipse.
I am running Mamp on a Macbook with OS X Lion.
Currently I always go back to Komodo. So my question is: What are the advantages of having Symfony support in Eclipse and Netbeans (I actually tried both)?
I don't mind editing and going back and forth between the editor and the browser. I never really understood why there needs to be a huge application for that. I just can't see any advantages other than the code intelligence, and integrated subversion tools in the editors. Can anybody agree on that?
I use NetBeans too which works well even with Symfony 2. You don't need to set anything, just create a new PHP project from existing Symfony folder. You'll get autocomplete for classes and validation check for YAML (if you use it, of course).
For Twig you can install this plugin which gives you syntax highlight and nothing more. This is enough for me. The only problem I found is that Twig templates are hard to read if you use some dark (and cool) NetBeans theme: you should use default black on white one.
I don't recommend Eclipse even with Symfony2 plugin: works really bad and it takes minutes to install. The only good feature (I can't get in NetBeans) is custom commands for generating entities, install assets and so on.
I use NetBeans for all my PHP projects, including symfony 1.x stuff. I used to use Eclipse but found that auto-complete would hang from time to time - though they may have fixed that. Both are memory hungry and seem to hang onto RAM increasingly over time, hence both need restarts periodically if you are in the habit of sleeping your machine rather than turning it off.
The autocompletion is pretty good in NetBeans, anyway, so I've stuck with it. I agree on your assessment of framework support in IDEs generally - it may be nice to have, but I'm happy with the CLI.
#Mike i've been working on a symfony plugin for eclipse, it's available here: http://symfony.dubture.com/
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last year and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I have a problem with FCKEditor and TinyMCE.
I need a WYSIWYG editor that doesn't modify HTML when changing views (like fixing broken HTML etc.)
I have tried different configuration parameters, but none of them turn off html modification entirely.
Is there a WYSIWYG editor that doesn't modify HTML even when its broken?
Very hardly. The actual WYSIWYG editing is done by components integrated in the browsers (Midas in Firefox, contentEditable tag in IE). In my experience, they all tend to auto-fix broken HTML as best as they can. All the WYSIWYG editors build around that functionality.
I think some degree of auto-fixing is kind of inherent to any WYSIWYG editor, because broken HTML can't really be edited.
What are you trying to get around? Try to describe what your actual problem is and maybe somebody can come up with a different way.
I believe FCKEditor, TinyMCE, and many other WYSIWYG editors use editable iframes. This means they allow the browser to decide how to modify the HTML and is more of a builtin function (builtin in the sense of the browser). Someone please jump in here if I'm wrong.
Try creating your html on you desktop and copy and pasting it to your browser editor
just make sure you use the same mode on each editor ie html to html or wysiwyg to wysiwyg
Here is the desk top editor I use and it works well
Technology is moving so fast it is impossible to keep up and learn how to use all the new tool coming out
I like to try out new thing when I have the time but
I still need to get the thing done that I need to do
So I like to do the bulk of my html editing on my desk top and this is the faithful tool I use
For anything you do online it is important to understand how things work
so you are not at the mercy of others
I believe that it is important to understand and be able to edit html and create web pages
here is the easy way that I have found to achieve this
If You are looking for help with Website Creation then I would suggest that you have a look at kompozer it is an updated version of
nvu
and looks the same and operates almost the same but is a more stable software as almost all of the bugs have been removed
Go to this site http://kompozer-nvu.info/ if you are interested in a set of video tutorial that will make you a expert in no time at all
Have a look at what Kompozer can do
It is my website editor of choice as it is free
I learned to use it fully with videos
Go to the site and get the free video they are enough to get you started
Try this http://www.richtexteditor.com/demo/.
We've used it for 1 year and found the html code is well kept in this editor.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
The people writing the user manual are not necessarily programmers, and they need a visual editor. A major issue is the internal format of the authoring tool; it should be readable text/html, so it's easy to compare versions of individual pages checked into version control.
DocBook
(source: docbook.org)
Microsoft HTML Help Workshop can be used to create good quality professional CHM help files. All you need is a bunch of HTML files. The tool "compiles" all these and bundles into a single Help file.
The HTML files can be generated using Microsoft Word/Frontpage or even Dreamweaver. You might want to consider source controlling these HTML files.
Latex. Lyx provides WYSIWYM for writing latex files.
At my old job they used a tool by madcap software called flare.
It seemed to work really well.
There are other professional products which allow help file writing and they have support of "context ID" which makes context sensitive help possible. Doc To Help and RoboHelp are these type of products.
A good combination to consider is Subversion, DocBook and Publican.
Version control = Subversion
Content Authoring = DocBook
Publishing = Publican
Optional WYSIWYG = Serna
At the moment, this is one of the toolchains in use by the world's largest provider of open source solutions, and the name behind much of the world's use of Linux-based operation systems in the enterprise market. Most (and close to all) of Red Hat's official documentation is created in such a manner. Same goes for Fedora.
The major "pro" here is that these are freely available tools, with a strong overlap in the market of technical writers. All of which will be able to (but might not want to) write in XML, and picking up DocBook is like picking up HTML in the 90's. Subversion is a very common version control tool, that like DocBook is relatively easy to implement and use. Publican is a great publishing tool that can take DocBook XML, and publish it to PDF, HTML, HTML-single, etc. Obviously your writers can use a WYSIWYG like Serna, but I use snippets in Geany (on Fedora) or TextMate (on OS X) personally.
The major "con" is the perception of technicality. Your writers might want WYSIWYG (and can have it), and depending on your documentation needs, this might be what you end up using. As you would know, there's a market out there for "Technical Writers" who specialize in fixing Microsoft Word styles (and markup), so the arguments for separating "authoring" from "publishing" are based on proven but distinct use cases for organizations that require documentation to be held up to the same standards of the engineering/programming/source production.
Some of the extreme advice you will get comes from people and companies that have been exposed to the value of XML documentation, and especially those in the realms of DITA, where certain multi-nationals have a reputation for acquisitions that are influenced by the format and availability of the product knowledge. there are also the arguments that locking your documentation into a "sticky" or closed format doesn't help the future maintenance requirements. This is where the open source options gain support on a corporate level. Plus, obviously, it's free.
You can use Subversion and MGTEK Help Producer. Help Producer makes help files from Word documents. TortoiseSVN comes with scripts to compare different revisions of Word documents, in Word itself (Word has a version compare tool).
Your users are going to want a visual diff tool that resembles the one they are editing in. If they are just slightly not-technical, DocBook or Latex aren't going to work (I've tried giving my users both, and I even tried Epic Editor as a DocBook editor which is very expensive but didn't work out very well after all). Sticking to something they know (Word) will prevent you many headaches.
I was very reluctant to go this route at first too, because I wanted a solution that was more 'technically perfect', but I realized over time that having happy and productive users was more important. Just saying that I know where you're coming from, but try the Word route - it works much better in practice than all the 'pure' text-based solutions that are out there. Regular users don't like markup based editing.
If you're using Visual Studio, take a look at SandCastle - http://www.codeplex.com/Sandcastle.
There's also a couple of tools that help you build sandcastle files, try searching "sandcastle" on codeplex. One of them is SandCastle Help File Builder (http://www.codeplex.com/SHFB), but I've never used it so I don't know if non-technical users will be happy with that.
Mapcap Flare is the best commercial tool around. Written by the ex-developers of Robodoc
I created a documentation system called Mandown (Markdown/Html/Javascript/file-based relatively linked documents for portability) which would easily go under version control. The visual editor part you would have to figure out separately - I sometimes use HTML-Kit which at least has a preview feature.
See What is the best way to store software documentation?
Here's another tool to check out: Xilize
We are using APT. It integrates well with the CI (standard build artifact) and is more alive than for instance word document. It is also possible to generate PDFs and other formats when needed.
Just wanted to get an idea for ways (web) developers get round the short fall of (most) WYSIWYG editors, whereby the users that are editing the text aren't always HTML literate enough to produce good/great results.
In the past we have resigned ourselves to either locking down the editor or simply not supplying one.
What are other peoples experiences?
If I understand your question correctly, my advice would be to allow basic text formatting in the editor (bold, italicize, underline, paragraph breaks, etc). Anything beyond that should be handled either by custom fields in your CMS system that talk to the corresponding template, or directly by your designers / front-end people. There really should be no designing going on in your text editor.
Also, using a templating language like Markdown might help editors feel more comfortable formatting their pages.
If you have the resources (as the question implies you do) you get the users to supply copy and designs in what they do know (Powerpoint, Word, Fireworks, etc) and get the people who can do a correct implementation (but who might not be able to write decent prose, etc) to put it into the HTML/CMS/magicthing.
Sometimes it is possible to use something like WYMeditor - it isn't that simple but produces clean semantic code. The other way is using some wiki-like code - Markdown for example. And you can ease editor's life by using some helpers like MarkItUp editor (it also supports original Wiki and Textile).
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
What is the best way to write a Safari extension? I've written a couple XUL extensions for Firefox, and now I'd like to write versions of them for Safari. Is there a way that would allow you to add buttons or forms to the browser UI, since this is not possible with an Input manager or Service menu?
Safari plugin development is non-trivial. The interface is written in Objective-C, and most of it is not even part of WebKit (so you can't see the source), but there's machinery to inspect and patch the object hierarchy of a running application. It requires understanding of Cocoa and Objective-C, but no lower.
Here's a high level overview I had in my bookmarks of the process http://livingcode.org/2006/tab-dumping-in-safari. It goes over creating Safari plugins using Python with working (probably outdated) code. Instead of Python you can use anything that has Objective-C bindings.
There are two major parts to it:
You need to attach your code to a running Safari. This is typically done with SIMBL http://www.culater.net/software/SIMBL/SIMBL.php.
Once you're inside, you need to figure what to patch. There's a tutorial on reversing Cocoa applications http://www.culater.net/wiki/moin.cgi/CocoaReverseEngineering, which links to the most important tool, class-dump http://www.codethecode.com/projects/class-dump/ (the link on wiki is broken). Class-dump gives you a complete hierarchy of Safari's classes, where you can guess by names what, specifically, you need to patch. This is a very trial and error mode.
Reading the links above will give you the scope of the project.
Things have changed recently. Apple now has an extensions API available as a part of Safari 5. You can find out more on Apple's site and by joining the Safari Developer Program.
Extensions to Safari have to be digitally signed, but you can get the signing certificate free from Apple. This is the legitimate way to get your extension into Safari without resorting to hacks that will likely break every time Apple updates Safari.
With the release of Safari 5.0, Apple released a new extension framework for developers to use. In features it looks similar to Firefox extension framework allowing to customize buttons, toolbars, context menus, injections using javascript and html 5
More at this link
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariextensions
Nobody seems to have even mentioned the fact that Safari actually does support true plugins, which input manager hacks most definitely are not.
"WebKit Plug-In Programming Topics"
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/InternetWeb/Conceptual/WebKit_PluginProgTopic/
This is how things like support for PDF and Flash content are implemented. Take a peek inside your /Library/Internet Plug-ins/ directory to see examples.
Of course, there are inherent limitations, and you may not be able to accomplish what you hope to as far as UI modification. Safari plug-ins can't do all the things that Input Manager hacks can, but they will work in WebKit anywhere, and in future versions of the OS. Note: Safari is 64-bit by default on Snow Leopard, so no Input Managers work. I'm missing Safari AdBlock already... :-( I would love to see it rewritten as a bonafide plugin.
Is there a way that would allow you to add buttons or forms to the browser UI, since this is not possible with an Input manager or Service menu?
Actually, with an InputManager, it would be possible. SIMBL, the common technique for Safari extensions, is simply a wrapper around InputManagers — it stands for Smart Input Manager Bundle Loader. You can add stuff to the menu bar, to the toolbar, dialogs, anywhere, simply by extending Safari's existing classes.
That said, writing extensions for Safari is not only non-trivial, as æon said, but also completely unsupported. There are some relatively popular ones out there, like Inquisitor (recently acquired by Yahoo!) and Google's Gears, but for the most part, it's very unlike Firefox's extensions, which are an officially-supported, widely used technique.
You also definitely want to take into consideration the special limitations of InputManagers on Leopard.
Also, to note - Apple has stated that InputManagers are being severely limited as of Leopard and will not run in 64-bit applications per Apple Leopard Release Notes. This is especially interesting considering most applications will be 64-bit in Snow Leopard (including presumably Safari). Apple is definitely trying to obliterate InputManager as a vector to overriding and extending functionality. Safari desperately needs an extension mechanism.
Safari Extensions do NOT need to be Approved by apple. You just have a developer cert (for free) to make them, but you can pass them around and although Apple is making the Extension Gallery, you don't have to distribute it through there. As you can see there are already quite a few extensions that you can try today. The cert just ensures that it hasn't been tampered with.
http://safariextensions.tumblr.com/
If you want to look at an existing extension to see how its done, download it or get it from your Safari extensions folder then change the .safariextz to .xar then open/extract with Pacifist to view the code and if you want add it to the Extension Builder app.