CMS Made Simple 2.0 (not 1.7) is in development

calguy1000 · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:51 pm

Now I see why Ted is still tempted to rip out the wysiwyg from the core distribution of CMSMS completely.

But, to put this topic to bed once and for all. MicroTiny will have no controls for tables or lists, will have no style selector at the bottom of the frame, no html button, and will have no style dropdown. Hell, if I had my way, I'd remove the 'insert image' button too. This gives you an editor where your customers can only perform very simple editing on only a handful of styles, thereby making your styling job much easier, and reduces the chance of customers mucking up your carefully designed and implemented theme.

If you want your users to be able to style lists, and style tables, and add a 'leaf-background' class to a heading then use the full wysiwyg editor on your website. You will also have to teach your users to use only certain styles in certain places, because the list of styles that is provided can be long and complex. Also, your end user will have much more of an ability to muck your carefully engineered theme because they will have the ability use some classes that were designed for tables and list elements on other elements like headings or images.

I now consider this issue closed.

Deak · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:17 pm

calguy1000 wrote:

MicroTiny will have no controls for lists.

Wow. I just looked at the screenshot again. This isn't a lie. Or a joke. :o

Pierre M. · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:12 pm

Hello all,

tyman00 wrote:

If you don't like the MicroTiny you can still configure your own Tiny as you wish based off of TinyMCE and export the XML file in Module Manager. Then in future sites install your version of Tiny with the XML file you exported.

Thank you for this tip (targeting deployers). I think elaborating on this howto in the release notes or in the doc/wiki could help CMSms service providers.

calguy1000 wrote:

If you want your users to .............. then use the full wysiwyg editor on your website.

Yes and this seems damn simple to me : an 1.7 end user can do wysiwyg with the full Tiny like an 1.6 end user thanks to the TinyMCE module.

calguy1000 wrote:

I now consider this issue closed.

Even more : I fail to acknowledge there is an issue ;-)

If I understand well, here are 1.7 wysiwyg use cases :
-end user doesn't want/need wysiwyg : disable it in site config or user preferences. No change from 1.6 to 1.7.
-end user wants full TinyMCE : *install* and use TinyMCE module. Very light change from 1.6 to 1.7.
-end user wants full TinyMCE and bells and wishes (pastefromX...) and a pony : install, configure and use TinyMCE module. Almost no change from 1.6 to 1.7. (it is *still TinyMCE module* tuning).
-end user wants entry level wysiwyg, simple, easy, unbloated, "Just Works(TM)", fast, light : use included-in-core MicroTiny. This is a nice new possibility (feature) of 1.7.
It KISSes, I like it.

Pierre M.

moorezilla · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:14 pm

Quote:

There will be alot of new classes, and objects in the core... and there's no way we can know (without setting up an environment, and then testing ourselves) what functionality will or won't work with PHP 5.1.x.

All of the new code in new code in the core, and modules will be written to support (and probably require) php 5.2.x. If you think it's hard to get people to upgrade a system, try getting people to test every option, and permutation and combination of functionality on N different systems. That definitely isn't gonna happen.

We do know that php 5.1.x is buggy in alot of ways, therefore the best bet is to start the process of getting your servers upgraded now.

Again... you may try to limp by, but your mileage may vary....

and

To answer the question about PHP 5.2 asked earlier. Mainly, this decision was based on the gophp5 initiative a couple of years back. However, since I had the php 5.2 features to work with, I used them extensively in a lot of different areas of the CMSMS 2.0 code base. The main features I used were:

- Input filtering extension was added and enabled by default (modules will use this for parsing input parameters)
- JSON extension was added and enabled by default. (Because sending XML during AJAX calls is sooo 2005)
- Introduced DateTime and DateTimeZone objects with methods to manipulate date/time information. (HUGE deal -- the ORM uses this extensively)

Believe me... I wish it could be PHP 5.3, but that would be totally out of hand. Smiley There's some KILLER stuff in there.

Fair enough. Thanks for the responses. I shall commence summoning the yum god of package management!

Pierre M. · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:22 pm

Hello Ted,

Ted wrote:

Oh, and one more little thing. The ORM is getting pulled in as well. I'm not rewriting everything to use it, but it will get used for a few key things, most notably content/pages.

This reminds me of your annonces of the launch of CMSms v2 and then of the Silk framework : early somebody noticed "Hey, Ted, this ORM and so are very Rails-shaped" which you acknowledged. Now you are leaking some pieces about PHP 5.2 and "awesome" features of 5.3 which I think is trying to cope with Ruby. Hence the joke of the day :
The language more like Ruby, the framework more like Rails, the CMS more like Radiant ?-)
This makes CMSms my favorite PHP powered simple CMS.

Have fun coding/testing

Pierre M.

JeremyBASS · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:22 pm

You know, after everything that was said... all the great points that were raised on the css need, I'm with Ted here... pull it altogether... at least then I will have to do a little less work putting in TinyMCE... otherwise we will have to install the TinyMCE and uninstall the weaker one... nother worse then have the base need broking down and parts removed...

IMHO if I can't vote for the style dropdown then I vote to remove 100%... that will make most of everyone’s concerns with the switch a little easier...

Cheers
Jeremy

Deak · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:41 pm

Jeremy, if you pull the WYSIWYG you end up like ExpressionEngine. The forum will collapse under the weight of posts from people with problems installing version x.x of with version x.x of CMS Made Simple, or just asking why there is no WYSIWYG to start with. EE developers thought they were making a problem go away by doing this, but what they actually did was fragment their community on an important issue and put pressure on community leaders to manage the expectations of new users.

The shame here is that I think the developers were close to getting the editor situation perfect.

JeremyBASS · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:11 pm

Deak wrote:

The shame here is that I think the developers were close to getting the editor situation perfect.

I think I'd only agree with this statement... but heck I am sure that with every move there is as we are now here. But a good chat about this at least gets some of the reasons for such a change out in the open. Less this one point, I'm super excited to see all the new changes...

Cheers
Jeremy

calguy1000 · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:12 pm

Deak wrote:

calguy1000 wrote:

MicroTiny will have no controls for lists.

Wow. I just looked at the screenshot again. This isn't a lie. Or a joke. :o

We may consider the list stuff... and maybe a couple more items in the format list... but that'd be the extent of it.
I want an option to remove the insert image thing too.... that's what {content_image} is for.

tyman00 · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:55 pm

Pierre M. wrote:

tyman00 wrote:

If you don't like the MicroTiny you can still configure your own Tiny as you wish based off of TinyMCE and export the XML file in Module Manager. Then in future sites install your version of Tiny with the XML file you exported.

Thank you for this tip (targeting deployers). I think elaborating on this howto in the release notes or in the doc/wiki could help CMSms service providers.

Gladly! It's not in the Wiki, but I may add the settings to the Wiki once 1.7 is out.

http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/index.php/topic,36637

Note: Apparently the settings don't carry over. More information in the thread.

Pierre M. wrote:

It KISSes, I like it.

I agree.

ironblaze94 · **Posted:** Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:08 pm

calguy1000 wrote:

But, to put this topic to bed once and for all. MicroTiny will have no controls for tables or lists, will have no style selector at the bottom of the frame, no html button, and will have no style dropdown. Hell, if I had my way, I'd remove the 'insert image' button too. This gives you an editor where your customers can only perform very simple editing on only a handful of styles, thereby making your styling job much easier, and reduces the chance of customers mucking up your carefully designed and implemented theme.

Can the HTML button be visible for people with admin status? If i need to paste content into the content editor i much prefer going through manually adding tags as it is much quicker than using the toolbar (for me anyway). I can understand why we don't want users to have this feature for obvious reasons but admin (i.e. us developers) will know what we are doing.

calguy1000 · **Posted:** Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:10 pm

further update...

1.7 will have an option on each content page to set it as 'secure'.. that way you can automatically use https for your orders stuff, etc.
this was a feature we've needed for a LONG time.

fredp · **Posted:** Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:51 pm

Just wondering... will the 'removeformat' button be available in MicroTiny?

Thanks.

calguy1000 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:59 pm

fredp wrote:

Just wondering... will the 'removeformat' button be available in MicroTiny?

Nope.

fredp · **Posted:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:54 am

calguy1000 wrote:

fredp wrote:

Just wondering... will the 'removeformat' button be available in MicroTiny?

Nope.

Sounds like I'l be using full TinyMCE.

Thanks.

CMS Made Simple 2.0 (not 1.7) is in development

Who is online