How can I enable halloformat underline and hallojustify in Wagtails RichTextEditor? There doesn't seem to be any documentation on this. Thank you.
The process for defining new rich text features is documented immediately below the section you linked to:
http://docs.wagtail.io/en/v1.12/advanced_topics/customisation/page_editing_interface.html#extending-the-wysiwyg-editor-hallo-js
I would strongly recommend NOT enabling underline and justification options, though... Wagtail leaves them out for good reason. On the web, underline indicates a link - using underline for other things will look ugly and annoy your users.
Justification is a design choice, and design should be handled within the HTML and CSS, not by editors within the CMS. Editors should be dealing with the information content, not the presentation.
Related
i am playing with some wiki and i am wondering how is made this custom menu:
erepublik wiki
is it some modification?
I just need hints, links to something.
thanks
It's a template, made using wiki markup and parser functions. You can see the code that generates it by clicking the "view source" tab at the top of the page.
Alas, you probably won't find the code very readable unless you're already intimately familiar with MediaWiki template syntax — it's full of metatemplate madness and obscure MediaWiki features. But it's all there, if you can just make some sense of it.
In choosing an editor for my wiki-like site, I'm debating whether to allow HTML or a custom alternate markup (maybe like wikipedia/wikimedia's or BBCode).
HTML benefits:
Easy for users to deal with (copying and pasting, learning)
Somewhat future proof
Many more editing tools available, usually WYSIWYG too
Alternate markup benefits:
On the server side I don't have to worry about parsing malicious javascript or styles or HTML that I don't allow
Can be easy to learn
Can be easier to decipher if not HTML-savvy
Am I missing something, what's the best solution?
Depends on your target audience. If they're tech savvy, they probably know HTML, BBCode, etc. If they're not, they probably don't and a simplified markup might be more appropriate. Personally I like markdown for the non-tech savvy. There are editing tools available for both, also libraries available for handling each of them. So really it comes down to which do you want your users to use?
I would stick with wiki markup. You can make it easier by using a WYSIWYG editor like FCKEditor
For HTML, let moderators have control using e.g. Extension:RawMsg
Peroanlly as a user, I'm not a fan of html for things like wiki editing. Most of the time you dont need more than simple features so its too verbose and just makes life harder, and I dont really like using WYSIWYG editors either. I prefer being able to type Markdown or Textile myself directly into the editing field.
If ease of use is a concern, go with a WYSIWYG editor, and then it doesn't really matter what the underlying markup is.
What are some accepted practices for dealing with headers and button bars and other elements/widgets; mostly referring to the html part - size of static sections on the page? I'm using djangoforms, template_values passed to base.html and {% extends "base_generic.html" %}.
I'm a fairly handy programmer, but very HTML stupid. Are we really talking about having all the layout (say the side bar where an ad might be, or a button bar across the top of all pages) laid out with and so on with invisible grids embedded within invisible grids. This seems to be what docs tell you to do, but google app engine docs are...there is room for improvement.
If that's what we're doing, are there accepted practices other than vim for creating these layouts? Are there IDEs for this kind of thing. Does CSS fit into these 'layout' methods as far as size of a grid space or just the rules, such as centered or not?
Do my questions reveal a deeper misundertanding? Please suggest keywords I can use in google or GOOD documentation that won't assume I'm a Ruby or Java person just migrating over.
The platform, whether its Ruby, Java or GAE, has absolutely nothing to do with the eventual HTML layout. This is done completely in HTML and CSS.
Grids are a good way to do this - there are several freely-available grid systems, such as http://960.gs/. These deal with the CSS, and also help you to generate the basic structure of your HTML.
I'd like to create a technical wiki site and it requires the full use of HTML/CSS and maybe Javascript when editing a page. Is this something I can easily configure in MediaWiki? If not, is there any other wiki software that you'd recommend?
Thanks!
You can enable raw HTML support by setting $wgRawHtml = true; in your LocalSettings.php:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgRawHtml
However, as noted above this is rather insecure for a public site. (If locked down to registered usage only by known folks it's ok -- but you need to trust your users.)
There are some links on that manual page to extensions organized around letting you put specific known bits of HTML/JS in your output code as well, which may or may not fit your needs better.
Well, while MediaWiki itself does not support this, there are some extensions which allow at least HTML in a page. See for example this extension list. SecureHTML might so what you are looking for.
That said, I'd like to point out that allowing raw HTML rather defeats the purpose of a wiki:
it can and will mess up formatting and create weird problems (clashes between generated and user-provided HTML)
it makes it hard/impossible to convert the wiki to other formats (such as to print it)
it makes searching harder
it makes any kind of security impossible (think XSS)
This is doubly true for allowing Javascript.
So I'd like to ask why you need this. If you need special formatting that MediaWiki does not offer, consider using (or writing) an extension for this.
If you really need arbitrary HTML, a Wiki might not be the best tool for you. You should consider a CMS, or just put HTML files into Subversion.
So what are you trying to do?
Use nowiki tags. Docs can be found here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting
Currently our team is using MoinMoin as a wiki for IT and it's so nice.
We want to promote to use wiki for end-users because some of them are interested. On the wiki we'll share and edit requirements of aplications, for instance.
I think MoinMoin is not the more user-friendy (but I love to use it) that's why we are looking for the best user-friendly wiki for end-users/customers
For yourself MoinMoin is obviously user friendly. =) Seriously, consider all users and try to figure what kinds of usage patterns you have. MoinMoin is a reasonable choice since it's such a simple program. You can often help your non-programmer users by adding a feature or two to MoinMoin. Developers are up to speed with it and you have all the content there already.
That said. Mediawiki is used for lots of general wikis out there today. Including Wikipedia. An aspect of user friendliness is recognition. Mediawiki might feel more friendly because users are more familiar with how it works. And Mediawiki is widely adapted. Lots of extra features you might want to add to help your users are already written as extensions. And Mediawiki's extensions API is really good so you can easily automate your own verticals when the need arises. Mediawiki is reasonably feature rich without being totalluy overloaded. It has categories and templates which both come in handy for keeping things DRY and using the wiki in various processes. It shares lots of its syntax with MoinMoin since both have the same ancestor (syntax-wise).
I'd probably go with Mediawiki.
Visit Wikimatrix.org to determine what features you need and what tool is best for you. I often mention Foswiki.org as a very nice and userfriendly tool, but it really depends on the features that you need.
I have yet to see any Wiki that is more end-user friendly than Confluence.
Just the most important reasons:
While other Wikis say they have WYSIWYG editors, what they actually do is enclose selected text with markup when clicking an icon. That is not WYSIWYG, that's code injection! In Confluence 5 all editing is done from a visual editor (you actually DO see what you get right away straight within the editor). With the ability to add macros (markup) by powerusers.
In almost all other wikis the users are entirely responsible for creating and maintaining the link hierarchy. This means broken links and orphaned pages will be the norm. In Confluence all pages are automatically added to a page hierarchy and sorted by name. You can enable the tree browser via the Documentation theme to make browsing the wiki even without manually added links convenient. Lastly you have the ability to reorder pages in any order via drag & drop.
However, Confluence is rather costly for > 10 users. But well worth it if you can afford it, or you don't need more than 10 editors. Pure "readers" do not count towards users if anonymous viewing is enabled.