This is a Javascript project, but there is no NPM distribution for it. Edit: yes, it's not a Ruby gem. I stand corrected.
No, it's not distributed as a Ruby gem.
Trix: A rich text editor for everyday writing
31–40 of 137 posts
Re: Trix: A rich text editor for everyday writing
#32This is cool, one issue thou is that on iOS the select content menu gets in the way. Not Trix fault but iOS makes these WYSIWYG editors a no go.
Re: Trix: A rich text editor for everyday writing
#33Interesting naming. The WYSIWYG rich text editor in Google Docs is named Kix. The engine behind Google Sheets is named Trix.
Is there an open source alternative to Kix? I've been looking for WYSIWYG which has the look and feel of a document processor.
Re: Trix: A rich text editor for everyday writing
#34How does this compare to Prosemirror? ( http://prosemirror.net/ )
This doesn't support images as far as I can tell
Trix fully supports file attachments and image attachments, as documented in the readme. It includes an inline caption editor for images.
Trix also supports "content attachments" (currently undocumented) which allow embedding arbitrary HTML as attachments in the document. Basecamp 3 uses this feature to embed @mentions with avatars, and various oEmbed types, in messages and comments.
Re: Trix: A rich text editor for everyday writing
#35This is a Javascript project, but there is no NPM distribution for it. Edit: yes, it's not a Ruby gem. I stand corrected.
It's also open source. The developers (Basecamp) are obviously deeply invested in the Ruby stack. If you want to install it with NPM, you could a create pull request with a package.json file and some helpful information for the authors about how to submit to the NPM registry, no? This is the point of open source software you realise - that you can not just use the software, but that you can help improve it for yourse…
Raising an issue on GitHub would be a good first step.
Re: Trix: A rich text editor for everyday writing
#36Why are text editors so popular a project? My apologies if that sounds anything less than a legitimate question. I'm genuinely curious. It seems very common to me, over the last several years, to see $NEW_SHINY_EDITOR, and I wonder why. Are the alternatives that bad? Or is it just a matter of another dev wanting to scratch their own itch?
Yes, they are all terrible. I don't know if this will be any better. They all highlight how bad the web is as an environment to host applications. A rich text editor - something that is a trivial toy project in any other application development environment - is impossible to build on the web in 2015.
It is not impossible. It just takes a lot of time and effort. It took two developers around 18 months to build Trix.
The readme explains how our approach is different from other WYSIWYG editors. (Most others are just toolbars that call execCommand.)
Re: Trix: A rich text editor for everyday writing
#37Re: Trix: A rich text editor for everyday writing
#38This is a Javascript project, but there is no NPM distribution for it. Edit: yes, it's not a Ruby gem. I stand corrected.
> This is a Javascript project
It's not JavaScript, Trix is written in CoffeScript.
Re: Trix: A rich text editor for everyday writing
#39> CONDUCT.md
Did projects prior to being hosted on GitHub require a Code of Conduct or is that a new thing.
Re: Trix: A rich text editor for everyday writing
#40This looks interesting especially the part about "Trix sidesteps these inconsistencies by treating contenteditable as an I/O device". We recently started using froala ( https://www.froala.com/wysiwyg-editor/v2.0 ) and are really happy with it so far.
Also a Froala user, been using CKEDITOR before but switched since Froala worked better and had a simpler API.