I think it might be good to uncouple TinyMCE from our distribution.
It is LGPL and we distribute our code under the APLv2. I don't think it is a direct problem, but it will still be good to have a version of Zotonic without TinyMCE in it.
Maybe we can also make the use of TinyMCE optional, so that we use markdown or another simple text based editor when TinyMCE is not available.
It may prove to be easier for users to replace with another full featured editor of choice without us having to deal with licensing issues. (maybe a naive assumption, but it ought to be a move in the right direction to support it)
Cross reference: #474
WIP, but nearly done: 5b7b8de
The idea is that an editor must implement function z_editor with public methods init, add, remove, save. Textareas can be inited with z_editor-init.
mod_editor_tinymce will support versions 3.5.0 (default) and 4.0.26 through a config setting.
Toolbar buttons for internal link and source code
This would also clear the way for supporting different text editors, wouldn't it?
I have been eyeing this one: https://github.com/guardian/scribe
Great work @ArthurClemens
What we know about scribe looks good, but I never tested it. I think it could be a good replacement.
I also need a way to list the config choices: #758.
I think one would never want to have different kinds of wysiwig editors on the same page (or site). So the z_editor global can just point to the one in use.
I agree - sites (or pages) should settle on a specific one.
Otherwise they should use iframes and add their own complexity.
I just saw this editor. Don't know how good it is, but it promises the same html between browsers.