比较维基的TinyMCE和CKeditor [英] Compare TinyMCE and CKeditor for a Wiki

问题描述

对于自定义维基 django-wakawaka ，我想能够添加所见即所得支持

For a custom wiki django-wakawaka, i want to be able to add a WYSIWYG support.

TinyMCE显然是最受欢迎的插件，甚至使用Wordpress。

TinyMCE is obviously the most popular plugin, used even by Wordpress.

但CK编辑器似乎更多功能完整。

But CK-editor seems more feature full.

那些使用这两者或两者之一的人，这更好，为什么。有没有一些更好的套餐，我失踪了？

Those who have used either of these or both, which is better and why. Are there some better packages, that I am missing?

当我总结CKeditor是更好的时候，通过他们（因为它不是广泛使用）。

Is there something that I am missing when I conclude CKeditor is better, by going through them (because it is not as widely used).

我想将其与django和jquery一起使用，每页都有WYSIWYG小部件的多个实例。一个比另一个更有优势。

I want to use it with django and jquery, with multiple instances of WYSIWYG widget per page. Does one offer advantage over the other.

推荐答案

过去几天我花了一些时间实现CKEditor。过去我也实施了TinyMCE。积极的，它比TinyMCE更加一致和无bug - 我的意思是，TinyMCE感觉越野越多，CKEditor在更大程度上解决了尴尬的浏览器行为，使其感觉更加坚实。在否定的情况下，如果要扩展它，文档相对较少。我认为这主要是因为CKEditor是相对较新的（它的API与FCKEditor非常不同），而且期望CK 3.0文档至少达到FCK 2.0文档的质量是合理的。

I spent some time implementing CKEditor in the last couple days. I've implemented TinyMCE in the past as well. On the positive, it's far more consistent and bug-free than TinyMCE... by which I mean, where TinyMCE "feels" buggy, CKEditor has worked around awkward browser behavior to a much greater degree, making it "feel" much more solid. On the negative, if you want to extend it, the documentation is relatively sparse. I think this is mostly because CKEditor is relatively new (its API is very different from FCKEditor), and it would be reasonable to expect the CK 3.0 documentation to reach at least the quality of the FCK 2.0 docs soon.

这篇关于比较维基的TinyMCE和CKeditor的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！