Sullivan, James writes:
>The latest version that I use (2.6.4) has a (C) menu button that allows
>you to add Categories to your page, bringing up a dialog box and showing
>existing categories to choose from or to create a new one
I wish categories worked in FCK Editor, but they have bad bugs.
Cre
I am so happy this issue is being addressed, but this is not only important
for MediaWiki as such, but also for Wikipedia and her brothers and sisters.
Just imagine what a boost these projects would get when the
Wikitext-illiterate would be able to add content without having to bother
through lear
On 05/19/10 17:12, David Gerard wrote:
> On 19 May 2010 16:08, Chad wrote:
>
>> So to answer the original question of "Why don't we have WYSIWYG
>> when it's been around for 15 years?" It's because we need a lossless
>> conversion between raw wikitext and wikitext output by the visual
>> editor. L
Sullivan, James (NIH/CIT) [C] wrote:
> I agree. The latest version that I use (2.6.4) has a (C) menu button that
> allows you to add Categories to your page, bringing up a dialog box and
> showing existing categories to choose from or to create a new one. Nice
> feature since I always hate, wh
announcements and site admin list
Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] FCK Editor svn head and MW 1.16b2 - correct venue?
On 19 May 2010 18:42, Steve VanSlyck wrote:
>> Moving over to the other side of the argument for a moment, it seems to me
>> that the building could be built one brick at a time. E
On 19 May 2010 18:42, Steve VanSlyck wrote:
> MOving over to the other side of the argument for a moment, it seems to me
> that the building could be built one brick at a time. E.g., get the basic
> features in place first, such as bolding, underscoring, links, and
> god-forbid tables - and then
e: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:24:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] FCK Editor svn head and MW 1.16b2 - correct
venue?
> James Sullivan wrote:
> >Well, yes and no. Early word processors were quite buggy,
> >and they had to produce postscript to send to a laser printer...
>
> Hmmm
James Sullivan wrote:
>Well, yes and no. Early word processors were quite buggy,
>and they had to produce postscript to send to a laser printer...
Hmmm, the "early word processors" I remember were HARDWARE. I guess that makes
me ancient. :-)
>...but improvements were made and today we expect wo
On 19 May 2010 16:39, Robert Cummings wrote:
> In my particular case I get to fix the bugs and enhance both MediaWiki
> and FCKeditor :) Unfortunately, at this time I am unable to pass fixes
> back to the community due to contracting issues and how it relates to
> GPL. This is being addressed and
Well, yes and no. Early word processors were quite buggy, and they had to
produce postscript to send to a laser printer, postscript that no one ever had
to edit in. And what you saw was not always what you got, but improvements
were made and today we expect word processors to work flawlessly a
Since a plethora of intelligent people with no desire to learn WikiCode
can now add content, the quality of posts has been in line with the
adoption of wiki use by these people. Thus one would say it has gone up.
In the beginning there were some hard core users that learned WikiCode,
for the mo
David Gerard wrote:
> On 19 May 2010 15:50, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>> I have to disagree with you given my experience. In one government
>> department where MediaWiki was installed we saw the active user base
>> spike from about 1000 users to about 8000 users within a month of having
>> enabl
I'd be amazed to see a great WYSIWYG editor for any wiki, even among commercial
packages. I evaluated Atlassian's very popular "Confluence" wiki awhile back,
and it took me all of 5 minutes to find several bugs in the editor. Likewise
for the wiki in SharePoint 2007, which was far less powerful
On 19 May 2010 16:08, Chad wrote:
> So to answer the original question of "Why don't we have WYSIWYG
> when it's been around for 15 years?" It's because we need a lossless
> conversion between raw wikitext and wikitext output by the visual
> editor. Last time I checked, this was the major flaw th
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:55 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Our main problem is how to make things work for people who want
> WYSIWYG and people who want wikitext. I thought this was what CK in MW
> was working on ...
>
That really is the kicker isn't it? For longtime users of MW, there's
nothing you
Becuase Mediawiki was designed as a replacement for hand coding or learning
html, not as a replacement for Word or WordPerfect.
- Original Message -
> WYSIWYG editing is about 15 years old so it is nothing new, so I'm
perplexed why it is not available with Mediawiki, which has editing at
What if anything happend with the quality of the posts?
- Original Message -
From: Robert Cummings
>
> I have to disagree with you given my experience. In one government
> department where MediaWiki was installed we saw the active user base
> spike from about 1000 users to about 8000 u
On 19 May 2010 15:50, Robert Cummings wrote:
> I have to disagree with you given my experience. In one government
> department where MediaWiki was installed we saw the active user base
> spike from about 1000 users to about 8000 users within a month of having
> enabled FCKeditor. FCKeditor defi
wikitext?
-Jim
-Original Message-
From: Steve VanSlyck [mailto:s.vansl...@spamcop.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:16 AM
To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list
Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] FCK Editor svn head and MW 1.16b2 - correct venue?
Take a look at what Wikipedia is curre
Steve VanSlyck wrote:
> Take a look at what Wikipedia is currently doing with the vector skin. I'm
> having no problems, and, really, asking people to do their own markup is
> not something I see as a great issue. It requries people to engage
> mentally - at least somewhat - with what they're do
do it
themselves. I don't want to have to learn Dreamweaver simply to edit a
wiki page. And if we're not carefull that's exactly what we'll end up
with.
- Original Message -
From: "Sullivan, James (NIH/CIT) [C]"
To: 'MediaWiki announcements and site a
markup language to use a wiki
seems archaic in the 21st century.
-Jim
-Original Message-
From: Clayton [mailto:ccorn...@openoffice.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 3:51 AM
To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list
Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] FCK Editor svn head and MW 1.16b2 - corr
On 05/19/2010 01:20 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 18 May 2010 18:35, Platonides wrote:
>> Forwarding on behalf of Jack, which is not subscribed:
>
>>> Maybe the best idea would be to kill off our FCKeditor extension and try
>>> to collaborate with Wikia regarding their CKeditor integration extensi
On 18 May 2010 18:35, Platonides wrote:
> Forwarding on behalf of Jack, which is not subscribed:
>> Maybe the best idea would be to kill off our FCKeditor extension and try
>>to collaborate with Wikia regarding their CKeditor integration extension.
>>It certainly would be cool to have a good WYSI
Forwarding on behalf of Jack, which is not subscribed:
> Hi
> it's true that I created that fork of FCKeditor, but I'm afraid that I no
> longer maintain it. Tim Starling recently approached me with a
> FCKeditor-related question and I had to tell him the same thing.
> A WYSIWYG editor for MediaW
David Gerard wrote:
> On 17 May 2010 13:37, Chad wrote:
>
>> If you file a bug and I fix it in trunk, will the changes ever get to
>> their copy? Or vice versa...do we ever get downstream changes
>> they've made? This is different from having an external
>> dependency like GeSHi that we have to o
On 17 May 2010 13:37, Chad wrote:
> If you file a bug and I fix it in trunk, will the changes ever get to
> their copy? Or vice versa...do we ever get downstream changes
> they've made? This is different from having an external
> dependency like GeSHi that we have to occasionally update...
> this
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:27 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 5 May 2010 11:26, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Is this a suitable place to talk about problems with it? Is anyone
>> from FCK here?
>
>
> Given the tumbleweeds in response, it appears not ;-)
>
> I'll be filing bugs on it, then. Here's the fir
On 5 May 2010 11:26, David Gerard wrote:
> Is this a suitable place to talk about problems with it? Is anyone
> from FCK here?
Given the tumbleweeds in response, it appears not ;-)
I'll be filing bugs on it, then. Here's the first, an apparent
incompatibility between FCKeditor and InputBox:
h
I was particularly keen to get halfway-usable WYSIWYG editing in
MediaWiki for our office intranet. So I just did a test installation
of MW 1.16b2 with FCK Editor Official svn head.
It's pretty good, I'm really impressed! But it's buggy. (Chews up form
fields for the InputBox extension, and there'
30 matches
Mail list logo
