Yea, another annoying feature of the FCKeditor is it trying to make sense of what it does not understand, like some extension tags, leading it to mangle them, like replacing < and > with > and <. If your users are going to use an extension's features and FCKeditor is going to mangle them then this may be a real issue. I use the Inputbox but I tend to be the only one editing those pages and I normally use wikitext as my default editor.
Still, overall, the FCKeditor is accepted pretty well here but we only add extensions to a wiki when a user requests it. Normally only Cite and FCKeditor are added, and FCKeditor understands and uses Cite. I've installed various Calendar extensions, Widgets, and CategoryTree with no complaints but that doesn't mean the users have run into all the possible problems.
-Jim
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:35 PM To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Least-worst present WYSIWYG solution?
On 10 February 2011 19:24, Sullivan, James (NIH/CIT) [C] sullivan@mail.nih.gov wrote:
The FCKeditor does not handle these image attributes, just size, position and caption, which was my only point about links, and yes, I consider it "fancy" since most users do not add these attributes to their images. If they did I would be getting a lot of complaints about using the FCKeditor wrt images.
This is most promising :-D Yes, if they want to do fancy image attributes they can use wikitext :-)
My last experiment with FCK was hampered by it messing up the tags used by Extension:InputBox - our users are very fond of the "Create an article!" box I put on the front page of our internal wikis, but ediitng the page in FCK mangles it. Has anyone else encountered this? Or even solved it?
- d.
_______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l