orefalo wrote:I see two main trends in this thread:
On the one hand you've got the ones that need a rich editor
On the other hand you've got the ones that need a full featured editor (a la Word)
True.
The ideal would be a modular editor that can be easily customized to fit either user.
This tries to fulfill that ideal with a completely customizable button/toolbar set.
For now, there is no loss in having the extra buttons that aren't used as part of the codebase - they're just not that large.
Longer term on the todo list is a modular php/javascript page that will only serve the buttons that will be used by the editor.
orefalo wrote:Some will argument that textareas are better then iFrames... I personaly favor browser compatibility over code complexity.
The "browser compatibility" issue is only Firefox 2, which has an intelligent user base and is actively being phased out. While there is a need to be cross- browser, I think most will agree that there is a limit to how much bloat that needs to add. Especially as using an iFrame does not just create bloat, it limits the possibilities. [For example, there can only be true inline editing without an iFrame.]
orefalo wrote:Either way, I see a lot of fragmentation in the mootool editor landscape: with tons of projects doing pretty much the same.
Bottom line, rather than forking 10's of projects around a rich editor written in mootools. Why don't you contribute to a well written one ?
size ? do you think there is a different between a 4kb and a 9kb file ?
->
http://github.com/cheeaun/mooeditable/tree/masterI think the last thing we need at this point is fragmentation....
Why do I feel like I'm being attacked?
I know of at least five forks to the MooEditable project - GGedit, Your's, Ryan's, and two others that I would have to search for the names of. Far as I can tell, all but Ryan's [with your input] have been abandoned. (And, yes, its a fork, even if it is in the same gitHub account)
I am not looking for the MooInline project to have forks at all. In the best scenario, you, Ryan, and the others would be core developers of this project. More on this in a minute.
There are two reasons I didn't just extend MooEditable:
1. I tried and was rejected.
If you follow the threads there, I offered significant enhancements and code [including that you should set 'unselecteble' to 'on']. I offered an image uploader, complete with loading bar and more. They were all rejected.
This makes sense. Cheeaun (who I have the greatest respect for) wanted to write a simple editor within certain guidelines. I wanted something else. So do you and Ryan, for that matter, which is why you are in a branch (read: created a fork) instead of a core developer with Cheeaun.
2. This is something else entirely.
This editor is also well written, and it is much more extensible than Cheeaun's. It has a structure for flyout and regular toolbars. It supports inline editing.
Ryan just posted how he needs one toolbar for a number of elements - that has been a default option since day one. He is writing a CMS - this is much more targeted at CMSs. And it is much smaller - days have been spent on simplifying and minifying. It supports inherited styles. And more. (I do not know if Ryan has even seen this thread yet.)
I can't just extend MooEditable. I have an entirely different beast.
Perhaps, though, you can help in this project, and limit the field to two instead of four. [We desperately need a designer, as I am sure you noticed].
Cheeaun's is better for those who need Firefox 2 (for some reason he has no support for Safari 2), and who want a simple subset of keys. The entire body of his editor is written around those particular buttons.
This is better for those that are willing to sacrifice FF2 for a more flexible and open editor. (As time goes by, that will shift forward.)
Working with me in no way restricts your continuing your own, or Ryan's, or helping Cheeaun. But please consider it, as I believe it is in all of our interests.
)
