Question WYSIWYG editor

Hi!

Could have developers use the WYSIWYG editor for Crypsis template?
For example, instead of the markItUp use CKEditor .

I decided to try the editor on the local server. I like the way it looks and works.

Could you do a pr on github.com/Kunena/Kunena-Forum against the K4.1 branch

We are also looking for other editors, but all editors have there plus and minus.

But I think this one is the best.

Yes, I'll try. But the editor still needs improvement. I changed a few plug-ins to adapt to kunena. Some plugins need to create.

810 wrote: all editors have there plus and minus.

What minuses you are concerned?

First of all, thank you, aperture, for your effort in energising this subject. At the risk of going a little off-topic, 810 made the point that "all editors" have their pluses and minuses—this is true—but the absence of any proof-of-concept, substantial contribution to the cause or demonstration by the developers to show what they are "looking for" has not assisted to progress this idea as well.

I think it is good that someone (other than the two people who are responsible for K 4.0 development) is interested and prepared to make a difference. The WYSIWYG conversation has been going on with Kunena for as long as I can remember. The absence of a WYSIWYG editor is seen by some people as a very "bad" thing; not having a WYSIWYG/HTML editor is seen by others as a "good" thing. There's no way to win this debate because there's no clear consensus of opinion. The simple conclusion is that if Kunena had a WYSIWYG editor this kind of feature would not please everyone.

It may be a good idea for Kunena to have a WYSIWYG editor. Speaking only for myself, I don't care if Kunena has a WYSIWYG editor or if it continues to use the existing editor; it would not affect my decision to use Kunena or use a different forum product because of this one feature. There are higher priorities for Kunena at the moment — fixing the problems caused by K 4.0's new features, writing user documentation to explain how K 4.0 works, updating this website, maintaining user confidence in the product, etc. Adding additional software/usability complexities of a WYSIWYG editor may not be desirable at this time while other CRM issues exist.

I want it clearly understood that I am not opposed to a WYSIWYG editor for Kunena. Would I use a WYSIWYG editor? That's a different matter. Would I buy additional software that may be needed so that I could add WYSIWYG editing functionality to my website(s)? That's also an entirely different proposition. These are some of the issues — the pluses and minuses — that people will have to consider for themselves.

The number one issue for WYSIWYG is security. As we all know, some (not all) WYSIWYG editors can facilitate attacks on websites in a variety of different ways . It may be possible, particularly if the WYSIWYG editor generates "raw" HTML that will be stored in the CMS database tables, to inject malicious code that could affect the site's users. Therefore a fairly big "minus" consideration/concern is the potential for creating a security vulnerability.

The discussion about WYSIWYG tends to get muddled by the debate over BBcode vs. HTML . As a website management issue (in isolation of any other discussion), it is dangerous to allow "anyone" to create and store every kind of HTML on your website; we all know and understand this simple truth and that is why BBcode was created in the first place. BBcode has pluses and minuses:

• BBcode is [relatively] safe (a plus);
• each forum software development has a different implementation of BBcode (a minus);
• converting between BBcode and HTML (or vice versa) is sometimes not easy; some people claim that BBcode is not intuitive or easy to learn (but the same can also be said of HTML or CSS, too, and it's hard to know if this is a plus or a minus);
• most people in forums do not use bolding, underlining, italicising or all the other f_a ⁿ [strike]c[/strike]y things that people claim is "easier" to do with a WYSIWYG editor (which makes us wonder if any kind of markup code is necessary anyway).

In conclusion, everyone is entitled to have a different opinion about WYSIWYG editors for Kunena (or about Kunena BBcode ) and that's OK. Whether or not it's important to implement different editor choices for Kunena is a different question. As long as our existing website assets are not compromised by allowing us to choose to keep the existing BBcode editor or use something else, I don't have a problem. If one or more people are interested to investigate a build a WYSIWYG "solution" for Kunena, that, in itself, is a huge plus!

Whatever solutions are implemented, the key point is to ensure that our website assets — our data, our businesses, our communities — are not compromised along the way. This, essentially, is at the heart of balancing the pluses and minuses in any discussion we may have about WYSIWYG editors.

sozzled wrote: The number one issue for WYSIWYG is security. As we all know, some (not all) WYSIWYG editors can facilitate attacks on websites in a variety of different ways . It may be possible, particularly if the WYSIWYG editor generates "raw" HTML that will be stored in the CMS database tables, to inject malicious code that could affect the site's users. Therefore a fairly big "minus" consideration/concern is the potential for creating a security vulnerability.

In this case, the editor does not generate raw html code. And no store it in a database. In my implementation replaced editor code but, as before, it is stored in a database format BBcode.

Hi aperture,
Could you do a pr on our GitHub, then we will fix some issue's, if you got some.

GitHub: github.com/Kunena/Kunena-Forum/tree/K5.0

Thank you

Hi 810.
Now there is no spare time, a lot of work. The editor contains errors that must be corrected. I can only do in a month.

aperture wrote: In this case, the editor does not generate raw html code. And no store it in a database. In my implementation replaced editor code but, as before, it is stored in a database format BBcode.

I think it would be great if Kunena made the jump to work with HTML and converted BBcode to HTML as needed.

Most people who oppose the use of a WYSIWYG editor are those who are confused and think WYSIWYG = HTML. This is absolutely incorrect. WYSIWYG is a concept or method of editing that can be used with ANY markup language, such a bbCode. Face is that swapping editors does not mean that HTML will be used or stored anywhere, infact not much at all changes in the operation of the forum. The WYSIWYG "code" is still bbCode so when submitted to the server, the backend behaves just as it normally would and no conversion or tag stripping other than what is already present is needed. You could not inject HTML into it any more than you could inject HTML into an existing editor.

I am 100% FOR a WYSIWYG editor, because there simply is no reason to write strictly in bbCode.