click-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Malcolm Edgar <malcolm.ed...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Update RichTextArea example
Date Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:54:14 GMT
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Adrian A.<a.adrian.tech@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What is the issue with the YUIRichText editor? Size or dependencies?

I am not sure if size should be a constraining factor for a RichText
editor, as the resources should be compressed when served, and then
cached on the users PC. With RichText editors they are not controls
you would put on your home page.

> Size, dependencies, complexity.
> Even if it's a quite well documented library, users find it quite complex.
> For the WYSIWYG, I see that people still prefer TinyMCE.

Unfortunately TinyMCE has an incompatible LGPL license

> For JS libraries in general, after the first WTF (because of the unusual
> approach), most users I've worked with find jQuery the most productive (but
> it has also the biggest number of books too :) ).
>
>
>> but the potential issue we have
>> with JS libraries is that the runtime environments (browsers) are not
>> stable, and can necessitate constant maintenance of the libraries.
>
> I'm aware of this problem, but since JS is the only "spice" for the web
> right now,
> IMHO there's not much we can do. Minimizing the use of JS in Click would not
> be a very smart option since the direction of all frameworks (and user's
> request too) is for more JS: and even the browser support goes in this
> direction - see the JS threads, and JS engine performance increases of the
> newer browsers.
>
I am not saying don't include JS, just we need to take care selecting
libraries which are actively supported as web browsers are constantly
changing: IE6, IE7, IE8, FF, Safari, Chrome, etc.

> Adrian.
>
>
regards Malcolm Edgar

Mime
View raw message