search

rajeshmishra90 / subtext

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/subtext
0 stars 0 forks source link

Upgrade Rich Text Editor to CKEditor 3.0 #1

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Use Google Chrome (or Safari on a Mac) to login to the admin section
2. Click to create a new Blog Post
3. Notice that the body of the blog post is a text area

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Expected to see the FCKEditor

Please use labels and text to provide additional information.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by haac...@gmail.com on 13 Mar 2009 at 6:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by haac...@gmail.com on 13 Mar 2009 at 6:10

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I'll take that one, migrating to the latest version of fckeditor

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 13 Mar 2009 at 5:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by haac...@gmail.com on 23 Mar 2009 at 3:24

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Assigning to Simo

Looks like FCKEditor v2.6.3 fixes this problem.
(http://www.fckeditor.net/forums/viewtopic.php?
f=6&t=11135&p=29322&hilit=Chrome#p29322)
don't know if this is a bugfix now or a feature request.

Original comment by haac...@gmail.com on 28 Mar 2009 at 5:32

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
bugfix or feature request, seems like there is no way to distinguish them in 
Google
Code :)
Anyway, I'll update to the latest version of FCKeditor

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 28 Mar 2009 at 9:33

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Let's use our own label "Feature-Request".

Original comment by haac...@gmail.com on 29 Mar 2009 at 6:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Actually, we should use the existing "Type-Enhancement" label!

Original comment by haac...@gmail.com on 29 Mar 2009 at 6:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Issue 49 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 3 Jun 2009 at 4:28

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 3 Jun 2009 at 4:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
CKEditor still doesn't have a free file browser included: what do we do?
Upgrade and loose the file browser? or keep the old one and his bugs?

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 6 Jan 2010 at 9:26

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Is CKFinder an option? http://ckfinder.com

I can't tell what the licensing on it is, though. Not sure if it's free or not,
though the download page claims "fully functional, open source file browser, 
with
source code included."

Original comment by travis.illig on 6 Jan 2010 at 9:51

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
There seems to be a contradiction:
the license (http://ckfinder.com/license) says

"If you did not pay for a license, you may use unlicensed copies of CKFinder 
for the 
exclusive purpose of demonstration."

Not open source for me

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 6 Jan 2010 at 9:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Is there an ETA for the file browser? Do any of you use the file browser? I 
personally don't use it, so I'd be fine with upgrading and removing the file 
browser.

Original comment by haac...@gmail.com on 6 Jan 2010 at 10:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I use WLW :)
But I know many people who use the online editor, and if you want to include an 
image, 
you have to use it.
Otherwise you have to add an image to the gallery, copy the link, go back to 
the post 
page, and paste it.
With the file browser you just upload the file contextually with the writing.
This is the same thing that happens with WLW, just done on the server.

Probably I'd drop our customization that uses the filebrowser to let the user 
browse 
for old post and link to them.

About the ETA for the file browser lite... I've been asking on forums and with 
email 
to Frederico (the main developer and founder of the project) but no luck so far.

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 6 Jan 2010 at 10:10

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
For folks not using Windows Live Writer, that would mean there's no way to put 
any
images or whatever into blog posts without manually/separately visiting via 
FTP. Not
terribly usable, IMO.

How about this one? http://labs.corefive.com/Projects/FileManager/

Original comment by travis.illig on 6 Jan 2010 at 10:12

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
...except that Core Five one doesn't have a .NET component. :(

Original comment by travis.illig on 6 Jan 2010 at 10:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Ok, in that case, unless we find or build our own file manager, we should stick 
with 
the existing CKEditor.

Original comment by haac...@gmail.com on 6 Jan 2010 at 10:17

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I'll look around for possible other replacements...
but I guess we'll have to build our own serverside part to make it work in .NET
Most of these things are PHP

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 6 Jan 2010 at 10:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I got an answer for the owner.
1 - They recommend using CKFinder, but it cannot be used in OSS
2 - There are plenty of other ajax file manager but none he knows has a 
serverside 
component for .net

So he suggests:
1 - take the Core Five one which is the best one and build the .NET integration
2 - take the old file manager and make it work with the new CKEditor

Core Five:
Pro: nicer than the one we have now, more modern, by making the .NET component 
we 
make something good to them as well, the connection with CKEditor is already 
done
Cons: we have to make that server component

Old One:
Pro: we keep the old server component (no need to build a new one)
Cons: older looking, need to find out the way to make it work with CKEditor

Which approach would you suggest?

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 6 Jan 2010 at 11:04

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I would personally go with the old one.
This explains how to integrate any file browser with CKeditor:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1498628/how-can-you-integrate-a-custom-file-b
rowser-
uploader-with-ckeditor

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 6 Jan 2010 at 11:07

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I think the Core Five one might be more work, but it'd keep the UI updated and 
would
be a positive contribution to the community. I vote that one.

Original comment by travis.illig on 6 Jan 2010 at 11:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Speaking of RichTextEditors, why don't we just remove the old FreeTextbox?
I don't think there is someone using it.

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 6 Jan 2010 at 11:40

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Why not look at http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/editor/

Lots of nice stuff :)

Original comment by Simon.JPhilp on 7 Jan 2010 at 9:14

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Yeah.. but this doesn't have a file browser..
we'd have to integrate an opensource one anyway.
At this point the missing thing is a connector that lists files from a folder :)

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 7 Jan 2010 at 9:18

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 8 Jan 2010 at 10:14

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I could build a .net connector for Core Five. I am desperately wanting to 
improve 
subtext so I don't have to go to the effort of migrating to wordpress.  How do 
I get 
involved?

Original comment by sky.sand...@gmail.com on 21 Apr 2010 at 1:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hi Sky,
that is awesome.
Please send me a patch for the CKEditor and the .net connector for the Core 
Five.
Attach it to this item and as soon as I finish a few things that are going on 
I'll have 
a look at it
Thx
Simone

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 21 Apr 2010 at 6:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I spent some time on this issue today and yesterday. Unfortunately it turned 
out to
be a tougher nut to crack than I had originally thought.

As far as I can tell, there are three main sub-tasks that need to be done:

1. Implement an ASP.NET custom control wrapper for the CKEditor, since version 
3.x
doesn't come bundled with one like the previous version. If there's an existing
ASP.NET wrapper then someone please correct me.
2. Re-implement the insert tags plug-in from the old FCKeditor. I don't know if
plug-ins from FCK are compatible with CK, but it doesn't look like it.
3. Finally, implement the connector for Core Five.

It has been a very long while since I wrote an ASP.NET custom control, so I'm 
having
a bit of trouble there.

Maybe this issue is best deferred to 2.6?

Original comment by mohammad.b.abdulfatah on 17 May 2010 at 9:17

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I got busy and let this slip off my radar. 
I am going to start working on an fx 2.0 and fx 4.0 connector tonight.

Just a heads up to avoid duped effort.

Original comment by sky.sand...@gmail.com on 18 May 2010 at 7:56

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I think this can safely be postponed to a next release, otherwise we'll 
postpone the 
2.5 of another month.
Phil what do you think?

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 18 May 2010 at 8:00

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Yes, let's pospone. Sky, please feel free to do the work and submit a patch. 
I'll apply 
the patch into a branch so we don't delay the 2.5 release.

Original comment by haac...@gmail.com on 18 May 2010 at 3:16

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Ok. I have a working 3.5 connector. The API as described in the readme is a bit 
flaky 
but I am pretty confident in my interpretation.

I will need to complete the integration with latest CK to be sure. I can get 
that 
accomplished in the next couple days and then a good once over with some better 
test 
coverage and I will move on to the server control.

I figure about a week barring any bizzarro stoppers or sidetracks.

If you feel that backporting to 2.0 is important it shouldn't be a problem, 
just need 
to find/build some simple but reliable json serialization that I will be losing 
along 
with JavaScriptSerializer. But the best case scenario is that 3.5sp1 is 
acceptable 
requirement.

Just let me know.

Original comment by sky.sand...@gmail.com on 18 May 2010 at 4:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
3.5 should be fine as Subtext uses Routing, which requires 3.5sp1.
Once this is done we also need to rewrite our custom connector that allows 
listing old 
posts.
I still think this is too much for this release, tho

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 18 May 2010 at 4:20

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Before I start packaging patches I would like to collection some feedback to 
get the 
work at least vaguely shaped.

Is there a place we could start a feedback loop to help shape the behavior of 
the 
file picker? 

I have the new connector integrated with ckeditor using a slightly tweaked 
version of 
the default picker supplied with filemanager.

Am starting on the tag plugin now and will wait for an email from simone with 
some 
brief details on the custom connector mentioned, perhaps I can get that spliced 
in to 
some degree.

The work in progress is here: http://skysanders.net/tests/ckeditor/

Original comment by sky.sand...@gmail.com on 18 May 2010 at 9:03

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Sky, maybe the best place for this is the subtext mailing list.
Are you subscribed to it?

Just briefly:
 *we need to be able also to upload files directly from the "add link" dialog (it was
available in FCKeditor, might not be in CK)
 *We need to be able to choose between general documents and just images
 *The custom connector treated posted articles as files, so that one could link to an
old post. It treated categories and months as folders.

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 18 May 2010 at 9:21

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Issue 120 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by simone.chiaretta on 18 May 2010 at 9:22

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
ok, I applied and will begin the conversation when approved.

Original comment by sky.sand...@gmail.com on 18 May 2010 at 9:31

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Any updates on this? It's only been over a year. :P

Original comment by haac...@gmail.com on 19 Nov 2011 at 11:18

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I'm going to punt this to vNext unless I hear otherwise.

Original comment by haac...@gmail.com on 20 Nov 2011 at 5:26