I could not find very much detailed information about this, but I'm looking for some guidance when trying to install the Wikiwyg-editor (http://www.wikiwyg.net/) into Mediawiki.
I don't want the greasemonkey solution, but full serverside integration of the wikiwyg-editor. Anyone done this, and if yes, how?
Gerard Bierens Fontys Mediatheek webcoördinator
---------------------------------------------------------------- Op deze e-mail zijn de volgende voorwaarden van toepassing:
http://www.fontys.nl/disclaimer
The above disclaimer applies to this e-mail message. ----------------------------------------------------------------
Bierens,Gerard G.J.M. wrote:
I could not find very much detailed information about this, but I'm looking for some guidance when trying to install the Wikiwyg-editor (http://www.wikiwyg.net/) into Mediawiki.
I don't want the greasemonkey solution, but full serverside integration of the wikiwyg-editor. Anyone done this, and if yes, how?
Wait six months to a year; eventually there may be a suitable such package.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I've been waiting three years for WYSIWYG or WYSIWYM support in MediaWiki. I keep going off trying other Wikis with such support but they're never up to par with MediaWiki in all other respects.
Christiaan
On 25 Apr 2006, at 2:45 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Bierens,Gerard G.J.M. wrote:
I could not find very much detailed information about this, but I'm looking for some guidance when trying to install the Wikiwyg-editor (http://www.wikiwyg.net/) into Mediawiki.
I don't want the greasemonkey solution, but full serverside integration of the wikiwyg-editor. Anyone done this, and if yes, how?
Wait six months to a year; eventually there may be a suitable such package.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Wait six months to a year? A bit long if you ask me, the demo's on the wikiwyg website show the potential of a more friendly editor. Isn't there a programmer around who can make this into a mediawiki-extension?
Gerard
MediaWiki's syntax is extremely complex and weird; switching dynamically between this and a WYSIWYG mode is not going to be trivial. Furthermore, we have things like dynamically transcluded and parametrized templates which a) cannot be easily rendered as WYSIWYG, b) can break.
Could someone who has GreaseMonkey installed post a quick evaluation of the state of http://demo.wikiwyg.net/wikiwyg/demo/wikipedia/ ? Does it convert accurately back and forth between MediaWiki's syntax and WYSIWYG on complex pages? How does it deal with templates?
Erik
Gerard Bierens wrote:
Wait six months to a year? A bit long if you ask me, the demo's on the wikiwyg website show the potential of a more friendly editor. Isn't there a programmer around who can make this into a mediawiki-extension?
Going from "demo that works on a few very simple things" to "something actually usable for a real site with five years' worth of data and millions of pages without breaking everything" is not a trivial task.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Moin,
On Tuesday 25 April 2006 11:00, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
I've been waiting three years for WYSIWYG or WYSIWYM support in MediaWiki. I keep going off trying other Wikis with such support but they're never up to par with MediaWiki in all other respects.
Have you looked at:
Best wishes,
Tels
Wouldn't open in Safari (our standard office browser). Opened in Firefox and looks pretty interesting, but it's not WYSIWYG or WYSIWYM.
Cheers, Christiaan
On 25 Apr 2006, at 6:09 PM, Tels wrote:
On Tuesday 25 April 2006 11:00, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
I've been waiting three years for WYSIWYG or WYSIWYM support in MediaWiki. I keep going off trying other Wikis with such support but they're never up to par with MediaWiki in all other respects.
Have you looked at:
Best wishes,
Tels
Moin,
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 10:55, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
Wouldn't open in Safari (our standard office browser). Opened in Firefox and looks pretty interesting, but it's not WYSIWYG
Er, why not? *confused*
or WYSIWYM.
I will have to look that one up.
Best wishes,
Tels
On 4/26/06 9:26 AM, "Tels" nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
Moin,
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 10:55, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
Wouldn't open in Safari (our standard office browser). Opened in Firefox and looks pretty interesting, but it's not WYSIWYG
Er, why not? *confused*
The term WYSIWYG is often used to describe user interfaces which give the appearance that the user is directly manipulating the final output. Think Microsoft Word.
Wikiwyg, on the other hand, is a live preview. You still type wikitext, which is a code. [I happen to think wikiwyg is very cool, even if it isn't WYSIWYG.]
or WYSIWYM.
I will have to look that one up.
From en.wkipedia.org/WYSIWYM:
WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean) is the paradigm created for LyX. It means that the things displayed on a computer screen should accurately display the information that is trying to be conveyed rather than the actual formatting.
How that would be helpful in wiki-page authoring, where formatting is part of the meaning (unlike XML authoring, which is where WYSIWYM originates).
-- Joshua
Best wishes,
Tels
Moin,
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 23:55, Joshua Yeidel wrote:
On 4/26/06 9:26 AM, "Tels" nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
Moin,
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 10:55, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
Wouldn't open in Safari (our standard office browser). Opened in Firefox and looks pretty interesting, but it's not WYSIWYG
Er, why not? *confused*
The term WYSIWYG is often used to describe user interfaces which give the appearance that the user is directly manipulating the final output. Think Microsoft Word.
Wikiwyg, on the other hand, is a live preview. You still type wikitext, which is a code. [I happen to think wikiwyg is very cool, even if it isn't WYSIWYG.]
Ah, sorry, I was confused. OTOH, I found the process of true WYSIWYG always quite confusing, since the editor usually has it's own ideas what it should format how. But lots of "normal" people are conditioned by word :-)
or WYSIWYM.
I will have to look that one up.
From en.wkipedia.org/WYSIWYM:
WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean) is the paradigm created for LyX. It means that the things displayed on a computer screen should accurately display the information that is trying to be conveyed rather than the actual formatting.
How that would be helpful in wiki-page authoring, where formatting is part of the meaning (unlike XML authoring, which is where WYSIWYM originates).
I am not sure if it is really possible to seperate meaning (list item number one) and formatting (this is a list item). The user usually has to specify both, anyway.
One could whip up a JS (think ajax) editor that behaves like word, but so far I think nobody did it. Probably because in Word, you select a headline, type the text in, then select lots of styling (bold/color/size etc), so having lots of fancy options is desired.
On a wiki you are more restricted, you only have to select headline and type the text in, the actualy look (size, bold etc) is not in your control. (well you could use <div style="..">, but that defies the wiki idea).
Actually you try to only specify the content ("headline") and the structure ("this is a headline"), but no layout, formatting or style.
And I think since adding a headline is actually only 6 chars more than typing the text, most people found UI where you'd have to click "add a new headline here" more to bother than just to type it in. So thats probably the reason nobody bothered to make a WYSIWYG editor.
Did that make sense?
best wishes,
tels
Tels wrote:
From en.wkipedia.org/WYSIWYM:
WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean) is the paradigm created for LyX. It means that the things displayed on a computer screen should accurately display the information that is trying to be conveyed rather than the actual formatting.
How that would be helpful in wiki-page authoring, where formatting is part of the meaning (unlike XML authoring, which is where WYSIWYM originates).
I am not sure if it is really possible to seperate meaning (list item number one) and formatting (this is a list item). The user usually has to specify both, anyway.
One could whip up a JS (think ajax) editor that behaves like word, but so far I think nobody did it. Probably because in Word, you select a headline, type the text in, then select lots of styling (bold/color/size etc), so having lots of fancy options is desired.
I just felt the need to comment on the plans we have to integrate SynchroEdit (www.synchroedit.com) with MediaWiki at some point. I'm hopeful I can get to work on an extension at some point fairly soon, but who knows. Sorry for faintly off-topicness. :)
-Kalle.
Looks very cool. Look forward to it.
Christiaan
On 26 Apr 2006, at 11:08 PM, Kalle Alm wrote:
I just felt the need to comment on the plans we have to integrate SynchroEdit (www.synchroedit.com) with MediaWiki at some point. I'm hopeful I can get to work on an extension at some point fairly soon, but who knows. Sorry for faintly off-topicness. :)
-Kalle.
On 26 Apr 2006, at 11:06 PM, Tels wrote:
And I think since adding a headline is actually only 6 chars more than typing the text, most people found UI where you'd have to click "add a new headline here" more to bother than just to type it in. So thats probably the reason nobody bothered to make a WYSIWYG editor.
No, this isn't the case. Lack of WYSIWYG editing on our wiki intranet is the biggest impediment to wide-scale adoption. Period.
People feel overwhelmed as it is by their computers. MediaWiki markup to them is just another language they don't have time to learn. And I don't blame them.
Christiaan
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
On 26 Apr 2006, at 11:06 PM, Tels wrote:
And I think since adding a headline is actually only 6 chars more than typing the text, most people found UI where you'd have to click "add a new headline here" more to bother than just to type it in. So thats probably the reason nobody bothered to make a WYSIWYG editor.
In Word, you don't need to click anything. You can type e.g. CTRL-SHIFT-2 - another three-finger salute :) But if you type the wrong thing, you see your mistake immediately.
No, this isn't the case. Lack of WYSIWYG editing on our wiki intranet is the biggest impediment to wide-scale adoption. Period.
People feel overwhelmed as it is by their computers. MediaWiki markup to them is just another language they don't have time to learn. And I don't blame them.
Couldn't agree more.
Cheers, Dave
Joshua Yeidel wrote:
The term WYSIWYG is often used to describe user interfaces which give the appearance that the user is directly manipulating the final output. Think Microsoft Word.
Wikiwyg, on the other hand, is a live preview. You still type wikitext, which is a code. [I happen to think wikiwyg is very cool, even if it isn't WYSIWYG.]
Wikiwyg uses the browser's HTML editor widget, and converts the HTML back to wikitext for saving -- hopefully to wikitext which will translate back to what you edited. ;)
You can also click a tab to look at the reconverted wikitext before you save.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 4/27/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Joshua Yeidel wrote:
The term WYSIWYG is often used to describe user interfaces which give the appearance that the user is directly manipulating the final output. Think Microsoft Word.
Wikiwyg, on the other hand, is a live preview. You still type wikitext, which is a code. [I happen to think wikiwyg is very cool, even if it isn't WYSIWYG.]
Wikiwyg uses the browser's HTML editor widget, and converts the HTML back to wikitext for saving -- hopefully to wikitext which will translate back to what you edited. ;)
You can also click a tab to look at the reconverted wikitext before you save.
There's two Wikiwygs, one at wikiwyg.net and one at wikiwyg.org. They are different technologies.
Erik
For clarity, the one I described as a "live preview" is wikiwyg.org. I believe the one Brion described as HTML-to-wikitext is wikiwyg.net.
-- Joshua
On 4/26/06 3:55 PM, "Erik Moeller" eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Joshua Yeidel wrote:
The term WYSIWYG is often used to describe user interfaces which give the appearance that the user is directly manipulating the final output. Think Microsoft Word.
Wikiwyg, on the other hand, is a live preview. You still type wikitext, which is a code. [I happen to think wikiwyg is very cool, even if it isn't WYSIWYG.]
Wikiwyg uses the browser's HTML editor widget, and converts the HTML back to wikitext for saving -- hopefully to wikitext which will translate back to what you edited. ;)
You can also click a tab to look at the reconverted wikitext before you save.
There's two Wikiwygs, one at wikiwyg.net and one at wikiwyg.org. They are different technologies.
Erik _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Joshua Yeidel wrote:
For clarity, the one I described as a "live preview" is wikiwyg.org. I believe the one Brion described as HTML-to-wikitext is wikiwyg.net.
If you hear us talking about Wikiwyg, we mean the one sponsored by Socialtext, which Socialtext would like to adapt to MediaWiki.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 4/27/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Joshua Yeidel wrote:
The term WYSIWYG is often used to describe user interfaces which give the appearance that the user is directly manipulating the final output. Think Microsoft Word.
Wikiwyg, on the other hand, is a live preview. You still type wikitext, which is a code. [I happen to think wikiwyg is very cool, even if it isn't WYSIWYG.]
Wikiwyg uses the browser's HTML editor widget, and converts the HTML back to wikitext for saving -- hopefully to wikitext which will translate back to what you edited. ;)
You can also click a tab to look at the reconverted wikitext before you save.
There's two Wikiwygs, one at wikiwyg.net and one at wikiwyg.org. They are different technologies.
Aargh! Why do people do that :(
FWIW, I've used wikiwyg (.net :) with my kwiki. IMHO, it mainly works but there were quite a number of little bugs to sort out.
I just tried the .org version but I didn't get any live preview on its test page. When I changed text nothing changed in the preview window. The Preview button was always greyed out. The formatted text only updated when I clicked on the Save button in the usual way. Am I missing something?
Cheers, Dave
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org