LuCaspeRobin + Thomas ;-)

Stories on Webdesign

Testing WYSIWYG editors

13 December 2006

Over at Standards-Schmandards the 8 most popular WYSIWYG editors have been tested thoroughly. The article caught my attention as I'm about to make a decision on which WYSIWYG editor I'm gonna include in my self-built CMS. For a long while now I've been using XStandard, much to my liking. It has its own rendering engine (luckily NOT using the Internet Explorer MSHTML editor, which creates absolutely horrific markup), produces valid XHTML (sometimes it removes too much of my valid markup, but that aside) and is lightweight. The biggest drawback is that it requires an installment on every client where the CMS should/could be used. So it doesn't ship with the CMS, making it difficult to be able to edit the content in the CMS everywhere you'd like. There the javascript embedded editors like TinyMCE, FCKEditor and TinyFCK are a lot better, as they ship with the CMS-code and as long as Javascript is turned on in clients browser it works perfectly.

Yes, I'm happy that XStandard comes so well out of the test, but no, not happy that the Javascript editors aren't doing so well in producing the same markup no matter which browser is used. For now I'm leaning towards replacing XStandard with TinyMCE. Looking to the future I'll probably be using TinyFCK, which when it becomes a little more stable is the best of both worlds: TinyMCE combined with the filebrowser of FCKEditor.

Via 456bereastreet.

Updated 13 December 2006, by Sebastiaan Naafs - van Dijk

This is just really great, the WYSIWYM editor - What You See Is What You Mean. Check it out over at Especially the demo is really cool.

Posted by Sebastiaan Naafs - van Dijk | top

Post a comment on "Testing WYSIWYG editors"

HTML not allowed. Maxlength 1000 chars (excess trimmed).
E-mails never shown. URL's are auto-linked, though rel="nofollow" will be added.
Leave this field empty

Comments preview

  1.  posted:

    ... on 24 June 2017 @ 09:06