alan

I've *never* seen what antknight screeh-shotted there and Chrome is my go-to browser. Is it because I use OS X maybe? antknight, if you use OS X too, have you tried using Canary to see if it's fixed there perhaps?

Nice site Joss and a belated welcome to PW. I was interested to see you used the Profile Exporter to go from dev to production. I've not used it yet. And when I go from dev to production I just copy files and then export/import the database (I was introduced to Navicat ($100 or so) a year or so back and have LOVED not having to use phpmyAdmin ever since). Good luck and enjoy using PW; I'm sure you will!

This sounds VERY helpful, thanks nik!

I've too little exposure to todays WYSIWYG editors to know their failings but I'm saddened and not overly surprised to read Good luck with progressing your idea mindplay.dk. And here's to going off-topic when it's called for!

Those editors impress me diogo (coming from a background where in my previous CMS I used Textile in the Admin i/f and nothing else). As long as an editors output is clean and ensures no copy-pasted cruft (like <font> etc) gets in then it's an exciting proposition. I suppose one 'problem' is which editor; while support for several could be added (and perhaps that's inevitably what will happen) it seems like it would be good if one were standardized on, that would likely deliver the best implementation and ongoing support and enhancement. Arguably that's where we are now with TinyMCE (which as I've noted I don't dislike), except it looks from demos of other editors to my un-trained eye as if TinyMCE is a bit out of date. I've not yet seen the Chrome error, but I'm running Canary now and if I see it there I'll also report it.

Quite possibly :/ This other WYSIWYG editor has been bouncing about in another thread for a little while. It looks (to me) like use of it is likely not viable with the current version (licensing) but as Ryan suggested perhaps an earlier version would still be a big step up over TinyMCE* (if using an earlier version did not bring other problems)? *So far, TinyMCE has been kind to me and I have not used Redactor so I'm not bad-mouthing one or promoting the other, just seemed these two threads shared some interest.

I've not used it yet myself, partly because I am too dim to have thought of uses yet, but I am sure they will come to me and I am sure you clever guys will easily see how this service might be used within PW installs in some cases. https://deadmanssnitch.com/ I hope it's of some interest to someone, I'm sure one day I'll suddenly remember it and rush over to use it to solve a requirement. PS: Slightly douchy link removed.

Thanks @steve228uk for taking the trouble to explain that, sounds like you lucked-in with that timing

oUCH! Good find @kolewu, I'd not seen that; showstopper indeed. Maybe an older version is the way to go; will go read your link...

I'm embarrassed to say I just did the "Oo, it looks pretty" and from that point on I was all dewey eyed about it and just wanted it; not a great basis for building a Module ) But I am sure Tom had good reason for the initial post suggesting this and @adamspruijt seems impressed, so I'm sure there will be some real benefits (I just don't know what they are ).

It does sound that way. If I were clever enough I'd love to do this (I'd need to do the Steve Martin 'Man With Two Brains' trick to pull that off), but in the absence of my Frankensteinian upgrade, I would almost certainly buy the Module to try it and if it was clearly the way to go compared to TinyMCE et al and it was affordable, I would use it as my default way-to-go for each install I did (and buy a copy per domain, if affordable and if sold that way). Thanks Tom for the original post and thanks Ryan for checking into this and thanks all who have contributed. If a Module is to be made, I wonder who will do it; you Ryan?

Aside from the technical qualities, the two things that makes me most excited about PW are Ryan's approach and the community here; it's a winning formula!

Welcome indeed WinnieB. You've probably seen it and it's not the Skyscraper site, but this blog profile is a great PW learning opportunity. Enjoy PW, I've not looked back since I luckily stumbled on it

Good find jukooz, but oh dear... At the risk of quoting myself and looking like a twat less professional:

Oo? Good find adamspruijt. From a glance those two look identical. That sounds good. However at the risk of being pessimistic one question springs to mind; how much due-diligence did the folks at Candy do to check they were OK to use Redactor in this way? No disrespect intended to Candy, I know absolutely nothing about them or the level of their due diligence in this matter and although this question is perhaps obvious I thought I'd just note it for completeness. But it IS good news that the two licenses look, to me, identical (from a 90 second scan).

Nice. Good find, but right now my preference would be the commercial/latest version as a chargeable Module rather than an earlier version for free. I hail your optimism Ryan Here's hoping!

That's a shame, it would be great if there was no equivocation or doubt and it fitted perfectly with the GNU license. But keeping whiter-than-white with the GNU license must I imagine be a top priority for you Ryan, quite understandably. No not ideal :/ My preference would be to pay a stake now in order to have it part of free-of-charge-PW in the future (although that's looking unlikely based on Ryan's findings so far—thanks for checking into this Ryan).

@adamspruijt Welcome indeed, and thanks for posting that vote of confidence in the Redactor editor, it's good to hear that first-hand feedback.

You're welcome Ryan.

Ryan; not trying to be pushy here (I'm sure you know that), in case it was of some help I knocked up this draft letter that you/ProcessWire could edit and/or send to ask the owners if they could help answer this question. The link is editable so right now (2012-10-12-1733 EST) it's showing my draft, apologies if someone on the interwebs goes and hacks it before you see it, if so let me know and I'll message it to you. I left it editable so anyone could improve it (I'm no lawyer so I'm sure it could be improved on). Hope it's of some help and no worries if you ignore this due to other priorities or for any other reason, happy to do it on the off chance it could be of some help.

Ah, OK. Yes I agree too, asking the owners is the way out of this.

@vitor it certainly does no harm But I think Ryan's point "Perch isn't a GNU/open source" would still leave one not fully clear about the use in PW's case.

Ah, Ok. I've not yet garnered the distinction about it whether it ships or not with PW making a difference, I must go re-read. Reading the OEM part it says I assume these dfinitions: license holder = ProcessWire.com/Ryan (I assume) license holder’s clients = people who use or make PW Modules This seems to suggest a PW Module of this should not be sold. As I said, I must go re-read...

Sadly I think your logic Tom could be crushed where it says and then goes on to show a $cost for for each of the three licence types. Off to go read some more though... PS: Near the top of the licence page it says So if we could frame the question well here first, someone could write to ask them; I'd be happy to if it's helpful, but wouldn't dream of doing so if Ryan/core devs didn't want this done or wanted to do this themselves at a time convenient to them.