Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pell – A simple and small rich-text editor for the web

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: Pell – A simple and small rich-text editor for the web

#91

Post by krat0sprakhar »

jaredreich wrote: post #75
marijn wrote: post #40

Nonsense, I've written a much smaller one: `function tinyEditor(element) { element.contentEditable = true }` That, plus a few crude buttons, is all this does. As several other comments point out, there's good reasons why real WYSIWYG packages are bigger—the user experience of working with a plain contentEditable element is still terrible, the output HTML still a complete mess. If you don't care much about that, you d…

The last thing I want for notable developers of high quality WYSIWYG editors is to get upset. Take this with a grain of salt. Continue doing the great things you do with ProseMirror and your other valuable open source contributions. But don't get upset. Try getting inspired, to move with the times, to trust browsers more, to make YOUR projects smaller, lighter, and easier to use. P.S. Just because something is small,…

> The last thing I want for notable developers of high quality WYSIWYG editors is to get upset.

While I'm certain you have good intentions, the size comparison chart at the top of the README is a bit misleading. It would be fair to list out the trade-offs on going ahead with ContentEditable so that users can know what they are getting if they choose Pell.

To clarify, Pell looks awesome and I don't intend to diss on your project or your hard work, just that the way the project's README is laid out I feel @marijn's response is not totally unwarranted.

Re: Pell – A simple and small rich-text editor for the web

#92

Post by marijn »

ctrlrsf wrote: post #67
marijn wrote: post #40

Nonsense, I've written a much smaller one: `function tinyEditor(element) { element.contentEditable = true }` That, plus a few crude buttons, is all this does. As several other comments point out, there's good reasons why real WYSIWYG packages are bigger—the user experience of working with a plain contentEditable element is still terrible, the output HTML still a complete mess. If you don't care much about that, you d…

@marijn On prosemirror.net home page, typing "# " in the sample editor seems to break it.

Good point -- I had some CSS attached to H1 nodes that accidentally also matched H1s in the editor. Should be fixed now.

Re: Pell – A simple and small rich-text editor for the web

#93

Post by marijn »

usaphp wrote: post #81
marijn wrote: post #40

Nonsense, I've written a much smaller one: `function tinyEditor(element) { element.contentEditable = true }` That, plus a few crude buttons, is all this does. As several other comments point out, there's good reasons why real WYSIWYG packages are bigger—the user experience of working with a plain contentEditable element is still terrible, the output HTML still a complete mess. If you don't care much about that, you d…

Your prosemirror homepage has a horizontal scroll bar when viewed from iPhone

Thanks for pointing that out. CSS is hard. Should be fixed now.

Re: Pell – A simple and small rich-text editor for the web

#94

Post by marijn »

jaredreich wrote: post #69
Afraithe wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't expect the browser vendors to fix contentEditable or inconsistencies for you, this has been the struggle of WYSIWYG editors for as long as they have existed and it really hasn't gotten a whole lot better. You will quickly find out that by the time your getting close to fix those inconsistencies, 4-6 years have passed and your right up there with the rest of the editors in terms of size and complexity. PS: Also…

I will most definitely expect browser vendors to perform these fixes. I think you've fallen behind on what's taking place in the browser world right now, a huge percentage of users are on evergreen webkit browsers (and increasing rapidly). The next 4-6 years of web will NOT look like the last 4-6 years of web. And this doesn't even account for bundled browser implementations (electron, etc.)

And those evergreen browsers are still doing terrible things when it comes to contentEditable, and they don't really have a lot of choice, because it's an underspecified poorly conceptualized idea that really doesn't leave them much room to things right. There's some work happening on the W3C editing taskforce to improve the concepts involved, but that's also moving at a glacial pace, and having to struggle with browser vendors at every steps.

So again, don't suggest we (editor implementors) are clueless or behind the times. We happen to have spent quite a bit of time on this stuff. We know it.

Re: Pell – A simple and small rich-text editor for the web

#95

Post by sk5t »

marijn wrote: post #92
ctrlrsf wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@marijn On prosemirror.net home page, typing "# " in the sample editor seems to break it.

Good point -- I had some CSS attached to H1 nodes that accidentally also matched H1s in the editor. Should be fixed now.

Also note, some of the tooltips appear as "undefined" and there's no way to advance the cursor past a horizontal rule at the end of the document.

Re: Pell – A simple and small rich-text editor for the web

#96

Post by jaredreich »

marijn wrote: post #94
jaredreich wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will most definitely expect browser vendors to perform these fixes. I think you've fallen behind on what's taking place in the browser world right now, a huge percentage of users are on evergreen webkit browsers (and increasing rapidly). The next 4-6 years of web will NOT look like the last 4-6 years of web. And this doesn't even account for bundled browser implementations (electron, etc.)

And those evergreen browsers are still doing terrible things when it comes to contentEditable, and they don't really have a lot of choice, because it's an underspecified poorly conceptualized idea that really doesn't leave them much room to things right. There's some work happening on the W3C editing taskforce to improve the concepts involved, but that's also moving at a glacial pace, and having to struggle with brow…

Again, you are getting offended. Not once did I suggest editor implementors are clueless. They're likely some of the best and sharpest developers out there. Please, as I mentioned earlier, take this project with a grain of salt.

By "fallen behind" I meant still making the assumption that many users are still using outdated browsers. This is not the case anymore, especially in the last year. And because of this fact, many WYSIWYG editors might be implementing a lot of cross-platform bloat that just isn't necessary any more. Rather than raging, perhaps browse through the ProseMirror source and see what you can remove as "obsolete" code.

Re: Pell – A simple and small rich-text editor for the web

#97

Post by emodendroket »

jaredreich wrote: post #75
marijn wrote: post #40

Nonsense, I've written a much smaller one: `function tinyEditor(element) { element.contentEditable = true }` That, plus a few crude buttons, is all this does. As several other comments point out, there's good reasons why real WYSIWYG packages are bigger—the user experience of working with a plain contentEditable element is still terrible, the output HTML still a complete mess. If you don't care much about that, you d…

The last thing I want for notable developers of high quality WYSIWYG editors is to get upset. Take this with a grain of salt. Continue doing the great things you do with ProseMirror and your other valuable open source contributions. But don't get upset. Try getting inspired, to move with the times, to trust browsers more, to make YOUR projects smaller, lighter, and easier to use. P.S. Just because something is small,…

I mean, the post you're replying to gives reasons why they didn't take that approach, and this reply seems vaguely insulting.

Re: Pell – A simple and small rich-text editor for the web

#99

Post by shaunxcode »

jaredreich wrote: post #75
marijn wrote: post #40

Nonsense, I've written a much smaller one: `function tinyEditor(element) { element.contentEditable = true }` That, plus a few crude buttons, is all this does. As several other comments point out, there's good reasons why real WYSIWYG packages are bigger—the user experience of working with a plain contentEditable element is still terrible, the output HTML still a complete mess. If you don't care much about that, you d…

The last thing I want for notable developers of high quality WYSIWYG editors is to get upset. Take this with a grain of salt. Continue doing the great things you do with ProseMirror and your other valuable open source contributions. But don't get upset. Try getting inspired, to move with the times, to trust browsers more, to make YOUR projects smaller, lighter, and easier to use. P.S. Just because something is small,…

Do you genuinely believe he has not explored that approach? How is one meant to get inspired by something they have already explored? Please don't be rude and wrong at the same time.

Re: Pell – A simple and small rich-text editor for the web

#100

Post by dbbk »

codebeaker wrote: post #73

I'm surprised to see no mention of the Trix editor here amongst the comments about how contentEditable is the root of all evil. Trix has a nice solution, from their readme: Trix sidesteps these inconsistencies by treating contenteditable as an I/O devi- ice: when input makes its way to the ed- itor, Trix converts that input into an editing operation on its internal docum- ent model, then re-renders that document back…

I've been using Mobiledoc lately which also follows this model, and it feels like the right way to go for me. Fighting against contenteditable is a never-ending uphill battle.
Post reply on HN