[Poll] Name of FCKeditor within MODx

Please vote in the poll to the left.

A note from Raymond regarding upgrades if a name change is decided upon:

Quote from: xwisdom at Sep 16, 2005, 09:43 PM

The only problem is that it would not upgrade or remove previously installed FCKEditors.

What about FredCK editor. That is the homepage for the developer. That way we’re still giving the author credit in the name.

FredCK.com

I’m for anything other than what it is now. Working with a lot of churches, I wouldn’t even dream offering it as an option...

Looking at his site, he doesn’t seem to care if you purge the FCKeditor name as long as it remains FCKeditor in the source:

Do I have to show the original about box in the toolbar?

No. There is no problem on removing the About button from the toolbar. You don’t need to show the editor name to your end users at all. In any case, the legal notices in the editor sources must remain untouched.

Quote from: aNoble at Sep 17, 2005, 11:46 PM

What about FredCK editor. That is the homepage for the developer. That way we’re still giving the author credit in the name.

FredCK.com

Choice added to poll. Note that you can change your vote.

Although I like the idea of maintaining the name and just modifying it a bit (FredCK Editor)...I’m not against the idea of using the terminology of "Default RichText Editor". However, I’m a little concerned about the use of labeling anything a "Default". Defaults may change...we may decide not to use FredCK Editor as the default. So...perhaps just sticking with a more unique and less obtrusive name for the editor would satisfy the needs for everyone? Just a thought.

3 Day Update:

FCKeditor (current) - 10.5% (2)

Default RichText Editor - 36.8% (7)

Buit-in RichText Editor - 15.8% (3)

FredCK Editor - 36.8% (7)

Other (Please Post) - 0% (0)

You know!

Since there is a lightweight editor call "widgEditor" and Jeff is creating a plugin for it. I am thinking perhaps we could keep FCKEditor the way it is and just use this "widgEditor" as the default.

This way the people that don’t like the "FCK" name will be happy and for those that don’t mind the "FCK" can still use it as an option.

In my opinion "FCKEditor" is widely use among many CMS and if we are going to change it to something else:
. We might create some confusion!
. We might make the author unhappy!

Just my 2 cents!

I might have to agree with you on that, Chanh. Thinking about it, I honestly feel that perhaps we would be better off making a different editor the default. Right now, I’m pointing more towards TinyMCE...but widgEditor might be a good choice. Certainly wouldn’t hurt to call it "Default Editor".

Jeff,

Out of all the editors that I have used in the past including TinyMCE, HTMLArea3, RTE, and more.

They all mess up my page whether it is custom HTML or javascript. Especially TinyMCE, HTMLArea3 and to some extent RTE. They all trying to be too helpful!

So far FCKEditor is the only one that did not mess up my code. I have not use "widgEditor" yet to know but base from what I see at the project site it might be as good as FCKEditor without the size when doing basic page editing.

As for the best default RTE I have these thoughts on each (in order of most reccomended):

1. Xinha --- most features but can become slow at times depending on build

2. FCKeditor (older version NOT 2.0) --- like htmlarea but MUCH faster and more stable --- VERY CLOSE TO #1

3. TinyMCE --- really annoying interface, buggy

4. widgEditor --- seems WAAAY to basic as you can’t even remove a hyperlink!

Those are just my thoughts.......