比较TinyMCE和CKeditor的Wiki [英] Compare TinyMCE and CKeditor for a Wiki

问题描述

有关定制维基 Django的wakawaka 的，我希望能够增加一个所见即所得支持。

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

TinyMCE的显然是最流行的插件，甚至WordPress的使用。

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

但CK-编辑似乎更多功能已满。

But CK-editor seems more feature full.

那些使用过这两者或两者的人，这更好，为什么。有没有一些更好的包，我很想念？

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

有没有当我的结论CKEDITOR比较好，通过他们去（因为它并不像，我失去了一些东西广泛使用）。

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

我想用Django和jQuery的使用它，每页所见即所得的窗口小部件的多个实例。是否比其他一体机报价的优势。

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

我花了一些时间在过去几天实施CKEditor的。我在过去也实现了TinyMCE。在积极的，它更一致和无缺陷比TinyMCE的......我的意思是，在TinyMCE的感觉越野车，CKEditor的大约有尴尬的浏览器的行为合作，在更大的程度，使之成为感觉更加坚实。在负面，如果你想扩展它，文档是相对稀疏。我认为这主要是因为CKEditor的是相对较新的（它的API是FCKEditor的非常不同），这将是合理的预期CK 3.0文档达到FCK至少质量2.0文档很快。

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TinyMCE和CKeditor的Wiki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！