Comments on: Radiant CMS and the DRY principle http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2008/03/radiant-cms-and/ Running commentary about agile development, user experience design and Ajax. Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:40:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: BTM http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2008/03/radiant-cms-and/#comment-81 BTM Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:32:09 +0000 http://www.pathf.com/blogs/?p=59#comment-81 <p>@T.J.: have you tried Tiny MCE? It's the best WYSIWYG editor that I know of (and I've tried a lot) - it produces valid XHTML most of the time (sometimes it replaces with - dunno why), is powerfull yet ease to use, and with propper config loads very fast.</p> @T.J.: have you tried Tiny MCE? It’s the best WYSIWYG editor that I know of (and I’ve tried a lot) - it produces valid XHTML most of the time (sometimes it replaces with - dunno why), is powerfull yet ease to use, and with propper config loads very fast.

]]> By: Brian Dillard http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2008/03/radiant-cms-and/#comment-80 Brian Dillard Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:19:29 +0000 http://www.pathf.com/blogs/?p=59#comment-80 <p>@T.J.:</p> <p>I think it depends on who your business user are. If they have experience dealing with Wikis, then Textile is a great solution. The syntax will be comfortable for them and allow them to do the kinds of markup you want them doing - simple text with the occasional image. If, however, they are strangers to even the simplified syntax of a Wiki, then maybe WYSIWYG is the way to go. Personally I hate WYSIWYG editors - even the one I have to use to post to this blog. They may produce valid markup, but it's usually pretty dumb markup, too. </p> @T.J.:

I think it depends on who your business user are. If they have experience dealing with Wikis, then Textile is a great solution. The syntax will be comfortable for them and allow them to do the kinds of markup you want them doing - simple text with the occasional image. If, however, they are strangers to even the simplified syntax of a Wiki, then maybe WYSIWYG is the way to go. Personally I hate WYSIWYG editors - even the one I have to use to post to this blog. They may produce valid markup, but it’s usually pretty dumb markup, too.

]]> By: T.J. http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2008/03/radiant-cms-and/#comment-79 T.J. Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:44:05 +0000 http://www.pathf.com/blogs/?p=59#comment-79 <p>This wasn't the main point of your post, but how satisfied are you with Textile? I'm working on a very simple CMS for a business to allow corporate and sales to add news stories as well as edit page content. I figured most of these people have little to no HTML knowledge, so I decided I would port a WYSIWYG editor to output valid (X)HTML, but the cross-browser quirks are making it more of a challenge then I anticipated. I'm considering Textile or a Wiki-style markup instead, but at that point it seems you might as well use HTML for some people.</p> This wasn’t the main point of your post, but how satisfied are you with Textile? I’m working on a very simple CMS for a business to allow corporate and sales to add news stories as well as edit page content. I figured most of these people have little to no HTML knowledge, so I decided I would port a WYSIWYG editor to output valid (X)HTML, but the cross-browser quirks are making it more of a challenge then I anticipated. I’m considering Textile or a Wiki-style markup instead, but at that point it seems you might as well use HTML for some people.

]]>