[GSoC] Inline editing for Joomla CMS

[Stefan Neculai]

Hello everyone,

I am posting this here to discuss about a project idea for GSoC and get feedback for it. It's from the top of my head and I'm sure it can be improved.

Idea: Add in inline editing options such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YE8ISXkLXM using Froala Editor (http://editor.froala.com). Don't worry about the license for the editor. Diana and I are the developers of this editor and we will update the license terms to clear any legal hurdles of integrating it with Joomla for free. Both me and Diana will support this idea.

I already talked with Chad about it and he emailed OSM to get more info about the necessary license.

Any feedback, suggestions or critics are appreciated.

Stefan

[Mark Dexter]

Looks very cool to me. Mark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[brian teeman]

Awesome that you are looking to Open Source your editor for everyone. 

How does it compare in features to the inline editing of TinyMCE4

[Chad Windnagle]

I mentioned a few things to Stefan about this and we have some answers already and some in the works. Here's what we talked about:

1) There might be a connection to a media manager 'like' application. We're not sure what it is yet but it's possible. 

2) There will ideally be a reusable API to make this something developers can incorporate, use, and customize programatically. 

3) I asked about translation / multi language and right now it doesn't seem to be an issue.

4) I asked about accessibility specifically. Unfortunately I'm not an expert on that topic. Would anyone be interested in helping us out here? We could use some feedback to determine what type of impact this sort of inline editing might have on our users who are dealing with visual and motor / dexterity impairments. If anyone knows anything about these topics and can speak intelligently on how this can be implemented in a high accessible way I would really appreciate it.

Regards,
Chad Windnagle

--

[Webdongle Elgnodbew]

Hi Stefan

Diana and I are the developers of this editor and we will update the license terms to clear any legal hurdles of integrating it with Joomla

That would mean that http://editor.froala.com/license would need to be changed to a GPL and therefore available free for anyone to download would it not ?   Joomla is used on a lot of commercial sites and your free version is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ... anyone see a problem there ?

On Monday, 24 February 2014 21:40:21 UTC, Stefan Neculai wrote:

[Chad Windnagle]

Hi Webdongle:

We are aware of the licensing issues and I've already opened a discussion with OSM to ensure that we can resolve the license issue. They don't need to adopt the GPL as far as I can tell. Joomla already uses many scripts that are not GPL but GPL compatible. As long as Stefan and Diana are willing to work that out (and they are) it shouldn't be an issue. 

Regards,
Chad Windnagle

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Chad Windnagle <ch...@cohesivewebsites.com> wrote:

Hi Webdongle:

We are aware of the licensing issues and I've already opened a discussion with OSM to ensure that we can resolve the license issue. They don't need to adopt the GPL as far as I can tell. Joomla already uses many scripts that are not GPL but GPL compatible. As long as Stefan and Diana are willing to work that out (and they are) it shouldn't be an issue. 

-Chad

--

[Webdongle Elgnodbew]

Hi Chad

Joomla already uses many scripts that are not GPL but GPL compatible. As long as Stefan and Diana are willing to work that out (and they are) it shouldn't be an issue

That's good ... because (as you probably know) their licence for their free version is not currently GPL compatible as it doesn't have "the freedom to use the software for any purpose,"

What extra features does it have compared to Tinymce ? 
Given that the code is already written would the time it takes to fit it in Joomla be too short for a GSoC project ?

If it is a large improvement on Tinymce then it would negate the need to install JCE on any site I create.

[Chad Windnagle]

Regarding the license I think we will end up with something similar to the IcoMoon project. They have a premium service but gave Joomla a free premium license:

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/blob/staging/media/jui/fonts/icomoon-license.txt

Regards,
Chad Windnagle

[brian teeman]

I still wait to hear what this offers  more than tinymce could offer if we adopt the tinymce inline edit functionality that is already available and we already include tinymce so we would not need to ship with a second editor

[Webdongle Elgnodbew]

HI Chad

Regarding the license I think we will end up with something similar to the IcoMoon project.

That's great ... so they will change their licence for the free version from Creative commons to a GPL like IcoMoon have for their free version ?  No matter what version they licence to Joomla will not their free version not need to be GPL ?

Not objecting ... just trying to understand how a commercial project that has a free version with a non GPL compatible licence can be included in Joomla. 

Could you please give an example of a script being used in Joomla that does not have a free version with a GPL (or non GPL compatible) licence ?  Or will the addition of this editor set a new precedent ?

Also what advantage would it have over Tinymce which is already in Joomla ?

On Monday, 24 February 2014 23:54:11 UTC, Chad Windnagle wrote:

[Michael Babker]

IIRC, at the time we first included the IcoMoon fonts, they were not distributing a free package under the GPL license.  Also, I don't believe we originally were licensed the IcoMoon fonts shipped with 3.0 under a GPL license (nor do I have notes on those discussions unfortunately).

Bootstrap 2.3.2 is distributed under the Apache 2.0 license (though the current 3.1.1 version is now MIT licensed).  The Apache 2.0 license is not compatible with our GPL v2+ license.

So, no, they do NOT have to relicense to GPL for Joomla to use their editor if we were to go this route.

Other products included with and used in the CMS, as pointed out, are MIT or LGPL licensed primarily.  PHPUnit is BSD licensed and our unit test suite interfaces with that.

====

As for the idea itself, I'm intrigued.  Inline editing could indeed be useful to some.  Brian did make a good point (although worded much differently); what benefit does this editor have over using TinyMCE to do something it can already do (and uses something we already ship)?

[Niv Froehlich]

First of all, thanks to Stefan and Diana for the generous offer!

@ Michael

So, no, they do NOT have to relicense to GPL for Joomla to use their editor if we were to go this route.

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying - but that is, in my view, arbitrary.  In other words, acceptance and integration could be made conditional on GPL v2+ - which I think would make a lot of people much more comfortable.

In order to, hopefully, save unnecessary debate on the issue (and instead focus on the potential 'value-add'),  Stefan, could I politely ask you and Diana to specify, upfront, which specific licence(s) you are willing contribute under?

Thanks so much again for your offer!!!

Best regards,

N

[Mark Dexter]

Keep in mind that the licensing for media is different than for PHP code (for weird legal reasons that I don't fully recall). Javascript is media (go figure) so there is more latitude for including media with different licenses. Mark

[Ashan]

Awesome !! No argument that it will definitely be a great value addition to Joomla! Since its based on jQuery I hope the browser compatibility won't be an issue. And by the way what are the browser versions that its currently supporting?

[Chad Windnagle]

I'm going to ignore the licensing portion of this discussion. I think the Joomla community is already engaging in enough discussion on the licensing front and I like to keep things related to GSoC as drama and debate free as possible. 

I have faith that Diana and Stefan will do their best to work out whatever arrangements have to be necessary to make this happen if we do indeed think it's a reasonable project to pursue. 

Even if you aren't sure about this license issue, please just assume the best about people rather than less than that.

--

Regarding TinyMCE, can someone clarify to me that I'm looking at the right thing here?

http://www.tinymce.com/tryit/inline.php

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s42/sh/982a3524-0885-43b9-ab12-81ed33e08b9a/c70abfbc49b99fdceffabd1792390c49

That's what i'm looking at when I click on 'inline editing'. To me it looks and functions dramatically different to how the example that Stefan's editors functions.

Some of the other items I mentioned earlier might be a possibility as well:

• Media / asset management
• I don't expect this to be a 'full blown' media manager component, but the demo video does show some interaction with media so I would hope that we also would be able to do something that is better than the TinyMCE implementation at the very least.
• Programmatic API
• Currently when you call for an editor like CodeMirror or TinyMCE you get the whole editor. No permissions, no ACL, and no ability to specify the functionality that the editor will have. Ideally we will get some more configurability to it. 
• TinyMCE's configurations are entirely based within the plugin which means they are more or less 'global' (I suppose one could override them somehow but it'd be effort). Ideally we can do that a bit differently here. 

--

Brian regarding the idea of shipping another editor: I know we already in core are shipping TinyMCE and also CodeMirror. I think if I understand your comment here that you think it would be a bad idea to add another editor if it purely just duplicates features we already have - correct? if so I totally agree. 

--

Final note: This is just an idea like all the others on the list. I appreciate the feedback! I would love it if everyone involved here put as much thought and discussion into the other items on the list as it would really help me and the students nail down ideas. Thanks everyone for your thoughtful replies! 

Idea list for anyone who wants to discuss more ideas:

http://docs.joomla.org/GSOC_2014_Project_Ideas

-Chad

Regards,
Chad Windnagle

[Webdongle Elgnodbew]

@Chad

Even if you aren't sure about this license issue, please just assume the best about people rather than less than that

I recent the insinuation that you make about my judging intentions ... my questions were practical ones to increase my understanding and to give opportunity for the question about licence to be in the open.  I was not questioning the 'best of people' or the 'less than that' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The question of the licence has been answered but the question of whether or not it would be better than Tinymce has not.  If that is not answered then there is the danger of entering a GSoC project just for the sake of having something there ... at the cost of adding something to Joomla that would not normally be added.  I for one would like to see an improvement to what we have ... but nothing has been said about what advantage this editor would have.

[Chad Windnagle]

Webdongle I posted some specific items that I thought would be differentiators between TinyMCE and this tool. 

Regards,
Chad Windnagle

[Niv Froehlich]

@ Chad

I'm going to ignore the licensing portion of this discussion.

I've pointed folks from the JUG Toronto to this thread.

Some of us feel that licensing issues are critically important to any decision making process.

I would politely ask the, as there is 'drama' in this thread, that none be created, but rather the concern be addressed, and that it be addressed upfront (again, without drama - please please please don't make this a 'drama' or interfere with question).  

It's a very fair question to ask Stefan and Diane.

@ Mark

Keep in mind that the licensing for media is different than for PHP code (for weird legal reasons that I don't fully recall). Javascript is media (go figure) so there is more latitude for including media with different licenses. Mark

Point well taken.  I am aware that inclusion of external libraries do not fall under 'derivative' works, any artwork etc. is also excluded.   However, any PHP code written and integrated is not excluded.

Best,

N

[Webdongle Elgnodbew]

Hi Chad

I'm going to ignore the licensing portion of this discussion. I think the Joomla community is already engaging in enough discussion on the licensing front

Other discussions about licence do not exclude the need for questions needing to be answered in this or any other thread.  And someone has questioned one of the answers given about the licence.

I like to keep things related to GSoC as drama and debate free as possible

Why ? ...  Is it because you have already made your decision and don't want it questioned ?

On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 01:59:57 UTC, Chad Windnagle wrote:

[Niv Froehlich]

@ Chad

Yes.  Just to note.  I take exception to 

Even if you aren't sure about this license issue, please just assume the best about people rather than less than that

Please follow your on advice here - we are not 'assuming' anything (if anything I am assuming the best of Stefan and Diane and see their offer of contribution as very generous).

However, licensing issues are at the core of our freedoms when it comes to software use, the very reason we are a part of Joomla!

People have worked very hard to protect these freedoms and these rights.

The legal opinion of OSM is that

PHP in an extension is considered derivative work and thus must be licensed by the GPL.

This why the JED only listed extensions licensed under the GNU GPL. 

A great deal of people may take issue with any other type of license - especially when the PLT has the power to make it a requirement for inclusion (something the PLT does not have, for example, with Bootstrap - the case here is different.)

N 

[Webdongle Elgnodbew]

In the interests of openness here is the contents of an email sent to me by Chad ...(Niv was included in the To field. 


-----------------------------------

On 25/02/2014 03:10, Chad Windnagle wrote:

Hello to you both:

I'm emailing you privately off-list because I said I did not wish to take that thread any further off topic with a licensing discussion. That said I feel like you're both pressing the licensing issue so I wanted to at least address with you. 

First of all, since I know the tone of emails is often unknown I want to tell you what my intent here is: I want to be honest with you, I don't wish to upset either of you, I am not being sarcastic and I am quite humble and calm. 

I realize licensing is an important issue to be discussed. When Stefan first reached out to me about this idea (this afternoon) my very first question was about the license. I then made efforts to speak to Paul Orwig on OSM regarding the license issue. Here's some proof to these facts:

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s42/sh/fa504527-4cfd-41c1-8293-2fe4062877d0/1e392c7386355c0dc47e5e6bc2629020

Hopefully here you can see I was very alert to the license issue, and I believe I did the right thing by immediately reaching out to OSM regarding the issue. 

You can see here I immediately followed up with OSM regarding the licensing:

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s42/sh/26f84419-eb85-4b0f-bb26-5db17cd4ce0c/cf4d831af0ce4b7d98cb7de995c78ae7

If you note the timestamp it's with 45 minutes of me telling Stefan I would do so. So I really do believe I have done the right steps here to ensure that any potential license conflict can and will be resolved. 

I would like to request again that the discussion on list be objectively about the feasibility and reasonability of the project in a strictly code-function related fashion. I work hard to ensure that the experience students have with GSoC is one that is not involved in our community's "politics" as it often can prevent them from becoming interested in contributing further. I truly hope you will help me do that as it is my most earnest desire to have a successful program this year. 

If you have more questions about licensing maybe we can open a separate discussion on list if you feel it's important, but I do ask that we let the topic Stefan created be focused on the actual idea it's self.

Thanks for your time and your wish to ensure the best for the project,

Sincerely

Chad

Regards,
Chad Windnagle

---------------------------

On Monday, 24 February 2014 21:40:21 UTC, Stefan Neculai wrote:

[Michael Babker]

Solely wearing my PLT hat here.

I do believe I've commented on the issue of privately addressed e-mails being shared publicly fairly recently.  In fact, in was in discussion with you, Kevin, on the forums over that last JED leadership thread.  I do not see a consent from Niv or Chad to share this e-mail publicly, and considering that Chad did take the time to not reply to you both about this topic on the thread here, I highly doubt he's pleased with your sharing "in the interests of openness".  Chad made a statement indicating that the proper avenues of approach were being followed to look at the licensing question, there is no need for either you or Niv to continue pushing the subject.

I cannot speak for the other PLT members, nor have I spoken with them as of the writing of this e-mail, but I will be discussing moderating further posts if the license issue continues to be pushed in this thread.  Niv and Kevin, both of you have been given more than enough proof that the topic is being discussed through the proper channels, please allow the project leadership to work their due diligence and find a proper solution.

Regards,

Michael Babker

Joomla! Production Leadership Team

--

[Niv Froehlich]

I am not phased by a 'private side discussion' and responded accordingly.  I think it's a smart move to take any 'personal' issues to a side discussion I did not share it - but I'm troubled by losing focus on the licensing questions.

Let's bring this back into focus re licensing.

This from Tim Plummer's latest book (http://www.amazon.ca/Learning-Joomla-Extension-Development-Third/dp/1782168370/)

The legal opinion received by Open Source Matters (OSM) is that the PHP code in an extension of Joomla! is considered a derivative work and thus must be licensed by GPL.

I think this is the understanding that we all operate under - and it is one that is intended to protect the rights and freedoms of all  contributors to Joomla!

There are times when there are exceptions (i.e. the incorporation of Bootstrap) and decisions need to be made with respect to what best serves the community's interests.

So forgive for wanting to understand, upfront, what licensing the contributors are willing to comply with.

IMHO - this should always be the first question asked.

I further want to express appreciation and gratitude to any  person who wishes to make a contribution.

Best,

Niv

PS

@ Michael

Niv and Kevin, both of you have been given more than enough proof that the topic is being discussed through the proper channels, please allow the project leadership to work their due diligence and find a proper solution.

Are you suggesting that input from the community regarding licensing or to be prohibited and shut down?

Can you explain to me if this is a 'taboo' subject?

You are aware that we are not privy or invited participants to those discussion.

I would suggest that as Tim Plummer, having written now 3 editions of a Joomla! extension development book that a) he is to be considered an authority on the matter; and the fact that b) there is section dedicated to advising extension developers on what licensing considerations  need to be taken into account that (up front at the beginning of the book) that licensing considerations are a vital and integral part to these discussions.

[Webdongle Elgnodbew]

@ Michael

I do believe I've commented on the issue of privately addressed e-mails being shared publicly fairly recently.  In fact, in was in discussion with you, Kevin, on the forums over that last JED leadership thread.

Yes and I do believe that I don't care what your opinion is about posting the contents of emails.  The fact of the matter is that I asked questions openly and the answer was given secretively.  Once I receive an email it is my right to share the contents with whom I choose.

That email was an attempt to shut me up and it was sent so as to avoid others from commenting on any inaccuracies I may not have spotted.  I may not be as eloquent as some but I am not stupid.  That email was an answer to a public question and therefore should have been answered in public.

[Webdongle Elgnodbew]

@ Michael

but I will be discussing moderating further posts if the license issue continues to be pushed in this thread.

Moderate this thread if you wish and the discussion will move to the forum.  Do you really want that ?

On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 03:49:27 UTC, Michael Babker wrote:

[Michael Babker]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Niv Froehlich <nivs...@gmail.com> wrote:

@ Michael

Niv and Kevin, both of you have been given more than enough proof that the topic is being discussed through the proper channels, please allow the project leadership to work their due diligence and find a proper solution.

Are you suggesting that input from the community regarding licensing or to be prohibited and shut down?

No, I am not.  However, I don't believe that continuing to push the subject after it has been identified as being discussed through the proper project channels is appropriate.  As well, I would suggest that mandating that their editor be relicensed to GPL v2 to even be included is not appropriate either.  Unless it is their intent to give it to Joomla completely, in which case it would be required, so long as it is under a GPL compatible license (typically either MIT or LGPL for PHP code; TinyMCE is LGPL licensed), then it can be distributed with the CMS and would be considered a third party library.

You are aware that we are not privy or invited participants to those discussion.

Neither am I, nor do I believe that EVERY Joomla user needs to be.  Trust that the appropriate personnel have been alerted to a potential issue, are acting on it, and will come back with an appropriate answer.  I don't believe the discussions OSM had with SFLC regarding Bootstrap's Apache license were made public, only that they happened and the end result of the discussion.

[Leo Lammerink]

I agree to this. Too much is handled beyond the face of the community already and if answers are given to public questions they should either be answered in public or refrain from answering.  This is not the NSA I believe ;-) ?

What is more important: Brian asked a very legitimate question to which no answer has been given: "I still wait to hear what this offers  more than tinymce could offer if we adopt the tinymce inline edit functionality that is already available and we already include tinymce so we would not need to ship with a second editor"

I am also curious where the need of an additional inline editor is coming from

Leo

[Leo Lammerink]

So if they want to contribute to Joomla they can post it on the JED.
Again as stated before why do we need an additional editor shipped where
we have Tiny?

[Chad Windnagle]

Hi Leo:

Thanks for the reply. I thought Brian asked a great question too! I attempted to reply to it directly a few posts back. Here's what I wrote:

Regarding TinyMCE, can someone clarify to me that I'm looking at the right thing here?

http://www.tinymce.com/tryit/inline.php

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s42/sh/982a3524-0885-43b9-ab12-81ed33e08b9a/c70abfbc49b99fdceffabd1792390c49

That's what i'm looking at when I click on 'inline editing'. To me it looks and functions dramatically different to how the example that Stefan's editors functions.

Some of the other items I mentioned earlier might be a possibility as well:

• Media / asset management
• I don't expect this to be a 'full blown' media manager component, but the demo video does show some interaction with media so I would hope that we also would be able to do something that is better than the TinyMCE implementation at the very least.
• Programmatic API
• Currently when you call for an editor like CodeMirror or TinyMCE you get the whole editor. No permissions, no ACL, and no ability to specify the functionality that the editor will have. Ideally we will get some more configurability to it. 
• TinyMCE's configurations are entirely based within the plugin which means they are more or less 'global' (I suppose one could override them somehow but it'd be effort). Ideally we can do that a bit differently here. 

--

Brian regarding the idea of shipping another editor: I know we already in core are shipping TinyMCE and also CodeMirror. I think if I understand your comment here that you think it would be a bad idea to add another editor if it purely just duplicates features we already have - correct? if so I totally agree. 

Does this help answer the questions on that? That's what I thought of so-far but I think we can get more thoughts from Stefan later on. 

Regards,
Chad Windnagle

[Michael Babker]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Webdongle Elgnodbew <in...@weblinksonline.co.uk> wrote:

@ Michael

I do believe I've commented on the issue of privately addressed e-mails being shared publicly fairly recently.  In fact, in was in discussion with you, Kevin, on the forums over that last JED leadership thread.

Yes and I do believe that I don't care what your opinion is about posting the contents of emails.  The fact of the matter is that I asked questions openly and the answer was given secretively.  Once I receive an email it is my right to share the contents with whom I choose.

That email was an attempt to shut me up and it was sent so as to avoid others from commenting on any inaccuracies I may not have spotted.  I may not be as eloquent as some but I am not stupid.  That email was an answer to a public question and therefore should have been answered in public.

You may not care for my opinion or even me personally, however, there are basic rules for respect that should be followed by everyone.  Sharing private e-mails without agreement from all parties involved in the e-mail is a massive sign of disrespect (and may even be illegal in some countries, I am not familiar with privacy laws as it pertains to e-mail traffic).  If anyone wants to share private e-mails, do the right thing and get the consent of all parties before doing so.

[Chad Windnagle]

I just want to make a general statement about this project and about GSoC:

1) This is a potential GSoC idea. Its great its being discussed in detail but there are about 20 more ideas that are probably just as discussion worthy. Go check them out! docs.joomla.org/GSOC_2014_Project_Ideas

2) GSoC contributions are different than contributions from the greater community.  These students are paid to work on joomla. Not to write an extension for the JED. So this project if it is to be done under GSoC must be a core project. Maybe it shouldn't be a GSoC Project - that's okay too. But if we are going to talk about it on the context of GSoC - which is the context this thread was started in then it must be with Google's intentions for a project in our mind. 

Regards,
Chad Windnagle

[Niv Froehlich]

@ Chad

Please don't be dissuaded from your course of action!  It's a wonderful idea and has my full support.

People have asked questions - rather, let's seek to have those answered.  Keep in mind you posted in a 'public' forum - so you have the public's interest - and questions - as a result.

I don't want to speak for Leo - but I share his questions - can we endeavour to have satisfactory answers.

@ Michael

 

Trust that the appropriate personnel have been alerted to a potential issue, are acting on it, and will come back with an appropriate answer

Where does one begin on this...

In such circumstances, are you suggesting that the development community should be prohibited, dissuaded or interfered with (i.e. as per your request to have my questions on licensing moderated)?

Can you explain why we should be forced to 'shut up' about matters of concern to us?

This is a public forum - we are discussing Joomla! development - licensing issues are part of the discussion.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

 Could I politely ask that we have a greater respect for these rights, and incorporate them into our daily affairs?

N

[Leo Lammerink]

Chad thanks for the reply.... I actually do not see the need for an additional editor based on the differences you posted. If one needs more (media) functionality just install the great JCE with it's versatile media manager +plugin, which has all permission settings and you can define the complete functionality in detail for any usergroup so we have all your dots functionality already available with JCE). Again if they want to enter Joomlasphere post it as extension on JED I would say. And yes I also consider this just a duplicate of TinyMCE and see no need to get this in core......

We have many alternatives already Chad on "editor-level" in the extension directory and others available such as the editor from Stackideas Reactor JS

Leo

[Chad Windnagle]

Hi Leo:

Thanks for the read of my post and the response. I appreciate your opinion. Also, to continue to try to educate on the GSoC process a bit let me just try to outline some additional things our standpoint:

1) an 'idea' is a starting place. It isn't intended to be a full-fledges detailed project description. That is something for a student to give to us. So right now the idea may not seem all that attractive. But as a student has the chance to review the idea and put their own spin on it, and then give us that detailed proposal it might gain some momentum and become something we view as a valuable thing to take on. So please don't discount this idea just yet. 

2) Keep in mind this idea is just like all the rest on the list: purely an idea. Students might review the list and not even be interested in this! Or, maybe someone will read it and have a great idea we will all love. We don't know yet what can happen. This is how GSoC works. So it is important for us to have an open mind on this. 

3) All the decisions on GSoC I make with a team of volunteers. I have asked a lot for help this year. If anyone here would like to be more involved in the GSoC decision making process you are more than welcome to volunteer. You'll have to work, but you will also get to put in your thoughts. You can do that by visiting this page: community.joomla.org/blogs/community/1797-gsoc-2014-kickoff.html

Regards,
Chad Windnagle

[Leo Lammerink]

Ha,
Appreciated and great work with GSoC for sure and important as well and thanks for the invitation but rest assured the time I spend on the forums and Bug Testing and Bug Squad and writing docs on Joomla and starting to do Pull Requests all besides my commercial  operations leaves me already ample room for my family

Keep on the good work though

Leo

[Tim Plummer]

Hi Niv,

Thanks for reading my book. I just wanted to step in and clarify a couple of points.

> This from Tim Plummer's latest book (http://www.amazon.ca/Learning-
> Joomla-Extension-Development-Third/dp/1782168370/)

> The legal opinion received by Open Source Matters (OSM) is that the
> PHP code in an extension of Joomla! is considered a derivative work
> and thus must be licensed by GPL.

That quote from OSM relates to writing a third party extension that runs on top of Joomla, which should be GPL. When we are talking about including a third party code in Joomla then that's a whole different kettle of fish, and there is not a requirement to be strictly GPL, it just needs to be GPL compatible such as the LGPL, MIT and BSD licenses.

> I would suggest that as Tim Plummer, having written now 3 editions
> of a Joomla! extension development book that a) he is to be
> considered an authority on the matter;

Actually I have only written 1 edition of the book which was Learning Joomla 3 Extension Development. Packt Publishing made the marketing decision to call it a Third Edition, as the idea "Learning Joomla Extension Development" had two previous books Learning Joomla 1.5 Extension Development (by Joseph LeBlanc) and Learning Joomla 1.5 Extension Development 2nd Edition (by Joseph LeBlanc). I suggested they call my book a first edition, but in the end it's their call not mine :)

regards

Tim Plummer

[Niv Froehlich]

I think it's great that we have a student involved and interested, and we should endeavor to make his involvement as positive and experience as possible.

Chad, I'm happy, if you feel it is helpful, to donate a copy of Tim Plummer's book, 'Learning Joomla! 3 Extension Development.'

Tim does cover the GPL issues, and it might be helpful as a resource.

My preference would be to begin with acceptance of the GPL licensing as a 'core value' of how we do things as a community - and whatever endeavour is set out on - however that said, it is very acceptable to create a free extension under the license, and then also, at some point in future, follow the 'Fremium, Once-off purchase model or Subscription Model' (these are explained further in Plummer's book).

In this way, there is no need for debate from the community, no need review licensing 'exceptions,' - extensions are added in the accepted way - and the foundation is built so that Stefan can use that experience for continued contributions to the JED, as well as, in the future build on that experience and work to earn some money - all within the accepted and agreed upon 'Joomla! way.'

Does this approach sound viable?

If so, let me know.

Best and thanks for your efforts!

Niv

PS

See Tim's clarification above (which came in while I was writing this).

Tim - thanks for the book and clarifications!  (It's a great book - I'm getting a lot out of it and highly recommend it).

That said, my suggestions still remain the same - it would be much easier (and I think smoother) to go the route of the JED.

[Chad Windnagle]

Niv I just want to clarify for you and others: In this case Stefan is not a student but actually a previous student. Stefan was a student in GSoC 2012 but is now offering to mentor a new student who is to-be-determined. So currently no student is involved in this discussion just yet. 

Also just to reiterate under the viewpoint of Google and GSoC, we don't want to be talking about 3rd party extensions since this isn't really what Google wants us to focus on. Google wants the students to be working on "core code" only. This is because their goal is to increase contributions to FOSS projects and get them involved in working with communities like Joomla. So with that in mind if we want to say this doesn't work for GSoC that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, but I want to be clear that this can only be done as a core GSoC project or a non-core, non-GSoC project (or a non-GSoC core project with someone else trying to get it into core!)

-Chad

Regards,
Chad Windnagle

[Niv Froehlich]

Chad,

That clarification is very helpful.  Thank you for it!

In this case, my view is that this entire thread is not for a world-wide community debate, but for a discussion directly with the PLT as ultimately they make the decisions as to what will be 'core' code.

They would also have much better pulse of what code would be a useful contribution.

It's a great thing that Stefan wants to mentor somebody (thanks Stefan) - please don't be dissuaded by any discussion here.

Best,

Niv

[Michael Babker]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Niv Froehlich <nivs...@gmail.com> wrote:

@ Michael 

Trust that the appropriate personnel have been alerted to a potential issue, are acting on it, and will come back with an appropriate answer

Where does one begin on this...

In such circumstances, are you suggesting that the development community should be prohibited, dissuaded or interfered with (i.e. as per your request to have my questions on licensing moderated)?

Considering that they started the thread with a statement indicating they would license their code in a way that allows us to use it within the CMS, and Chad affirmed that the appropriate questions had been forwarded to OSM, I don't feel that there needed to be an extended discussion on the topic of the license (when this thread was more intended to discuss an overall concept, not a specific editor).  I also felt that your and Kevin's insistence (note this is how I perceived the posts) that the editor must be licensed GPL to even be considered was not conductive to discussing the idea of a potential GSoC project.  I feel Chad agreed with that as he tried to answer both your's and Kevin's questions off-list so as to give you the answers you were looking for while allowing this thread to remain focused on a specific topic (which it has completely derailed from).

This is a public forum - we are discussing Joomla! development - licensing issues are part of the discussion.

As I noted already, I don't believe that licensing is part of the idea forming part of GSoC. Also, I believe Chad has covered most aspects of GSoC related development well.  But, long and short of it, all contributions (basically code written for the Joomla CMS) must be under the project's license, which is GPL v2 or later, and if a third party is to be used, it must be under a license which is compatible.  If something is not clearly compatible, as is the case in a weird sense with Bootstrap 2.3.2's Apache 2.0 license, then it is the job of PLT and the GSoC admins to liaise with OSM to seek legal counsel about any potential license issues.

[Michael Babker]

GSoC idea forming is a community topic.  Ultimately the PLT provides guidance as to what type of projects we would like to see, or areas of focus, provides feedback on the students code during the project period, and makes the decision on when to merge, otherwise we have a fairly open GSoC program.

[Niv Froehlich]

@ Michael

What I took exception to was an attempt to shut down the question (still a valid one in context)  and threatened with reporting to a moderator - and yet, your response (2 above) would have been (and is) a welcome response - it's very informative.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

If any member from the Joomla! Community has questions or concerns relating to the licensing of code to be incorporate in the core - then it is my hope that they will not be portrayed as 'evil bandits' and that the PLT will take those into their consideration.

In the process of this thread, there are some 'wins' - including a better understanding for everybody involved of

1) Chad and Stefan's efforts and the challenges; and 

2) Licensing issues, including a great and concise explanation from Tim Plummer.

GSoC idea forming is a community topic.

Now that we have a better idea of all this, since this a community discussion, and since

Ultimately the PLT provides guidance as to what type of projects we would like to see, or areas of focus, provides feedback on the students code during the project period, and makes the decision on when to merge

I think it would be helpful to 'refocus' this thread by having the PLT provide a list (or a link) of what type of projects, or areas of focus the PLT would like to see.

Is that possible?

Warmest regards,

Niv 

 

[Michael Babker]

In his planning for this year's program, Chad has already discussed several items related to the program and feature ideas with the PLT, and those have been incorporated into the project's official idea list at http://docs.joomla.org/GSOC_2014_Project_Ideas

[Niv Froehlich]

Thanks for the link Michael.  And Kudos to Chad!  You can see he is very dedicated and active with GSoC - on cursory review it's a great list - I'm looking forward to finding out more.

Also the call to help is important - I'll sign up as a tester for sure.

I guess my question is that since the list of ideas is located at the Joomla! Idea Pool (http://ideas.joomla.org/forums/84261-joomla-idea-pool), which has

a) already been contemplated by the community; 

b) has provisions for comments and feedback; and

c) appears to be extensive,

what is being sought from this thread that is not better oriented to the Joomla! Idea Pool?

I think the benefit there is that you get the benefit not only of feedback and comments, but also votes from the community.

What about posting the idea there and allowing for comments, feedback and votes?

This would have been my suggestion upfront if I had better understanding of all the details.

Best,

N

[Bakual]

Just adding to what Michael said. Sharing a private email without consent from the sender is illegal in Germany and could get you well in troubles here. It may be aloowed in USA of course, I don't know. But take care what you publish from whom or you may get into legal troubles.

Legal issues aside, I agree that it's bad behavior and sheds a bad light on you. You should certainly think about not sharing private emails in public. It's a "don't do that".

[Niv Froehlich]

I want to acknowledge that because I was one of the recipients of that private email (although I did not share it).

I guess we all endeavour to be better in world were none of us are perfect, so I hope that now that it's acknowledge, I'd very much appreciate if we could forgive and forget and move on.

The name is not important, but the person who shared it has certainly won my respect in so many other matters and is fighting for increased transparency, and also, the right for community stakeholders to have a vote in such matters that affect them, such as licensing decisions.

While all this going on, there is another very important thread, regarding a very important licensing decisions that will affect the future of the Joomla! Project

I feel that any decision has to be made in public, in a democratic manner (one person, one vote). This is why I come here today to ask you to cast your vote.

That quote was made by a mega-contributor whose code we all use - you can read that thread at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/frameworkonframework/VxxIKvTooXU

In context, while the community of contributors is barred from voting on licensing issues that effect their rights, in my view, anybody who fights for that right, any which way they can - has my respect (albeit this may be unpopular with those in the PLT and OSM - who have a vote but don't allow the same to the community of contributors at large).

Being asked to suggest and support contributions, under such conditions, and being prevented from having a say in these matters, is a very 'bitter pill' we are being asked to swallow.  I hope the PLT understands that.

As far as 'proper channels' go - what may appear proper to the PLT and OSM may appear to be 'improper' in the community of contributors as a whole, for the reasons set out above - and further underlined by the efforts of the thread (link above).

Regrettably, that issue (a hyper-sensitive one right now) - has reared it's ugly head here - as soon as the question of 'licensing' comes up - how can it not?

So while I disagree that the private email should have been shared, as it was, let's not forget the context of what's happening - and what is being asked of us when we are discussing contributions - but prevented from discussing the licensing which affects our rights as they pertain to those contributions.

In my view, there is something much more fundamentally important here going on than an erroneously shared private email.

N

[brian teeman]

Please please please

Learn to express yourself in less than a thousand words.

Read the previous answers before replying. (My question was answered by Chad very early).

Respect the privacy of others.

Accept that an answer by someone with more experience and knowledge is probably correct.

[brian teeman]

sorry about the multiple messages my phone has a mind of its own

[brian teeman]

On Monday, 24 February 2014 22:59:56 UTC, Chad Windnagle wrote:

4) I asked about accessibility specifically. Unfortunately I'm not an expert on that topic. Would anyone be interested in helping us out here? We could use some feedback to determine what type of impact this sort of inline editing might have on our users who are dealing with visual and motor / dexterity impairments. If anyone knows anything about these topics and can speak intelligently on how this can be implemented in a high accessible way I would really appreciate it.

I've done some work in this area - happy to have a conversation 

[Stefan Neculai]

Hi guys,

Sorry for my delayed answer but it was night here in Romania.

Regarding the license, as I already said in the first post, I will work with Chad to overcome any legal issue that may be there. We will update the license agreement of Froala Editor to make it compliant with Joomla.

Why I think that Froala is better than TinyMCE?
1) Froala is a lightweight editor and offers all basic functionality that TintMCE comes with too.

2) The inline mode from TinyMCE basically shows the same toolbar from the standard mode only that makes it to appear only when you click inside the editable zone. Froala has a different way of editing inline, by showing only a small popup just like you get on mobile devices. That gives you the feeling that you are editing inline and not inside a box. I believe this makes the editing experience greater.

3) TinyMCE still uses iframes.

4) Froala is the first WYSIWYG editor that comes with the possibility of image resize on mobile.

5) It has a nice flat designed interface. I believe that is a plus to all websites giving it a better feel from the start.

I also saw a question about the browser support of Froala Editor as it is using jQuery. Froala is cross browser and cross platform. It works on IE 9+, and Safari, Firefox, Chrome, Opera (Current - 1) and Current versions.

Both me and Diana are willing to support this project and continue maintaining it even after GSoC. Also, we can offer customizations of the editor specially made for Joomla like options to integrate it seamlessly with Joomla media manager.

Stefan Neculai
Phone: (+40) 743 232 773
Skype: stefanneculai

[George Wilson]

I think this is a nice project to work on if licenses can be resolved however I am worried about the lack of IE8 support (something Joomla 3 commits to).

If native media manager support doesn't exist I also question why we can't then just spend our time building that around tinymce. Chads reasons for using this seemed to rely on the media API. Can someone clarify what is and isn't in this editor from the media standpoint

Kind Regards,
George

[Stefan Neculai]

Don't know what to say about lack of IE 8 support.

Such editors, no matter it is TinyMCE, Froala or whatever other editor need to access the file structure in order to show media. These editors are written in JS usually which is client side and for accessing media there is need for a server side language, in this case PHP. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I came here asking for your feedback about integrating Froala editor into Joomla, with all my support for doing that. From all these discussions, I would like to get somehow to a conclusion which would clearly point out an YES or a NO. I would be thankfully if you could further discuss about that.

S.

[Bakual]

I don't have a problem if features like inline editing wouldn't be available for IE8 users as long as they can still edit things using TinyMCE.

And I'm saying this as a user of IE8 myself (at work, stupid SAP is incompatible with newer IEs ...)

[Niv Froehlich]

On the I.E. 8 issue..

With respect to these particularly stats, it is likely that the 'real world' usage of i.e. 8 is slightly higher than the 3.1% listed as of January.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_explorer.asp

It's interesting to note, but predictable, that higher versions of I.E. (i.e. 9 and 10) have even less usage - perhaps mostly due to folks who are stuck on XP.

I run XP on one of my systems - other major browsers support it - with updated versions - so even those running XP are not stuck - and I think even the circumstances as Bakual mentioned, one could (and likely does) run other browsers.

In addition, we are not exactly 'trail blazers' by dropping support for I.E. - so many others have already done so long ago.

IMO, it's time to put I.E. 8 in the rear view mirror.

N

--

[Bakual]

Am Dienstag, 25. Februar 2014 18:25:15 UTC+1 schrieb Niv Froehlich:

I think even the circumstances as Bakual mentioned, one could (and likely does) run other browsers.

I can, but most users in our company use a Citrix based system where they can't run other browsers :)

[George Wilson]

Thing is when I was implementing TinyMCE 4 I went back to the dev's there because I was told Joomla had committed to support IE8+ for the 3.x series and bugged the hell out of them until they added in the code required to support it. So I kinda feel uncomfortable pushing these guys and not at least trying to push you to see what it would take to support it.

Certainly when I've worked in the NHS in Britain they are using IE8 and also last year part of my companies operating system was OPTIMIZED for IE8. I think for your casual user IE8 isn't an issue but for so many companies it still is because of XP and people not wanting to upgrade to windows 8.

I think however it's a good option to have (maybe just not as the default editor). So in other words YES (but IE8 support would be a even bigger yes)

Kind Regards,
George

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/joomla-dev-cms/giQzWj7fIj8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.

[Stefan Neculai]

We decided not to add in support for IE8 because there are a lot of things wrong with it. All selection stuff simply isn't worth the effort of implementing and doing all the debug for it. Moreover, most of the frameworks out there already started to drop the support for older IE versions (jQuery, bootstrap, list can go on).

With Windows dropping the support for IE, I believe there will be fewer and fewer people using IE 8. I think the best thing to do is simply not to use this feature for IE8 users.

Stefan Neculai

Phone: (+40) 743 232 773

Skype: stefanneculai

[George Wilson]

Fair enough :) I'm still happy to have a GSOC project on this!

Kind Regards,

George

[Alex Andreae]

It's important to note that the IE9 requirement would be for users to who are (mainly) administering the site. Right now, Joomla really doesn't make a differentiation of browser requirements for 'administration' vs 'visitor', but in this case, I'd think saying that anyone that wants to edit content on the front-end using the inline editor would need IE9 is not as big a deal as saying "You need IE9+ to *use* Joomla".

It does cause a separation of features, and that can be troublesome to manage/document, but in the long run, IE9+ is going to win out. As long as *visitors* of the site can view it in IE7+, I don't think have an additional requirement on an optional editor is a big deal.

Alex

[Seth Warburton]

As long as *visitors* of the site can view it in IE7+, I don't think have an additional requirement on an optional editor is a big deal.

Actually, we only need to care about IE8. IE7 is already out of the picture, thankfully. 

[brian teeman]

For reference this is our current stated supported browser versionshttp://docs.joomla.org/Joomla_Browser_Support

[yannick berges]

+10000000 it wil be a great adding => with module editing in front we can do a powerfull page with easy management ! (i do it with ark editor and it wonderfull for end user)

[ssnobben]

Yes it would be very nice if Joomla had support for inline editing...did anything happened with this project?

[Joerg]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 7:36:19 PM UTC+1, ssnobben wrote:

Yes it would be very nice if Joomla had support for inline editing...did anything happened with this project?

It's a commercial project and according to their license open source projects are only allowed to include the minified sources.

[romacron]

They wrote:

"Don't worry about the license for the editor. Diana and I are the
developers of this editor and we will update the license terms to clear
any legal hurdles of integrating it with Joomla for free. Both me and
Diana will support this idea."

If it is not minified, it will be an good idea!

Also Joomla does not have an fast Ajax-Loadable/Attachable Editor with
an transparent structure

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

> Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:joomla-...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Niels Braczek]

Am 10.02.2016 um 18:28 schrieb romacron:

> If it is not minified, it will be an good idea!

Even if not, I see no problem.

Regards,
Niels

--
| New Stars on the Horizon: GreenCape · nibralab · laJoom |
| http://www.bsds.de · BSDS Braczek Software- und DatenSysteme |
| Webdesign · Webhosting · e-Commerce · Joomla! Content Management |
------------------------------------------------------------------

[stefan....@gmail.com]

Hello,

I noticed some buzz around this and as co-founder at Froala, I want to clarify that our offer no longer stands. When we wanted to integrate it back in 2014, after a loooooong discussion the conclusion was that the editor license was not compatible with the GPL one.

Stefan

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/joomla-dev-cms/giQzWj7fIj8/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.

[romacron]

..zumindest mal das Produkt beworben^^

[ssnobben]

Well thats understood Stefan bcs now you also will be a competitor to some of Joomlas markets too with that online editor and your cloud publishing offer. This is Froala inline editing demo https://www.froala.com/wysiwyg-editor#inline-demo  where you can change things directly on the page and that what people would love to see delivered with Joomla too of course!

Q: Is this a good/needed UX prio function for the Joomla community and is it on the prio agenda for a better important core Joomla feature? And whats the status of TinyMCE and how does Joomla move this inline editing features forward in the best way?

So what you think J4WG-PLT?  Maybe its already planned in the Joomla 4 architecture by J4WG (Marco.. et al)? 

[Bakual]

TinyMCE would actually allow inline editing as well. Just needs someone to write the code around it. See https://www.tinymce.com/docs/demo/inline/ for their demo.

[Niels Braczek]

Am 11.02.2016 um 07:36 schrieb ssnobben:

> So what you think J4WG-PLT? Maybe its already planned in the Joomla 4
> architecture by J4WG (Marco.. et al)?

No, there are no concrete plans currently, so it most likely is no
option for 4.0. Nevertheless, a 4.x release could ship with an inline
editor, maybe based on Aloha[1].

[1] http://www.alohaeditor.org/Content.Node/index.html

[Joerg]

Note that there is a free editor available in the JED (search for 'inline' and filter for 'editors'), for users who want inline editing.

[ssnobben]

I think a lot of end users want inline editing. Maybe this is the one you mean http://nextgeneditor.com/index.php/en/ ?

[Joerg]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:01:35 PM UTC+1, ssnobben wrote:

I think a lot of end users want inline editing. Maybe this is the one you mean http://nextgeneditor.com/index.php/en/ ?

Didn't see that one yesterday when I searched for 'Inline' and 'Editor'. I meant this one: http://inlineeditingforjoomla.com/

[Jean-Marc Bouillé]

Hi everybody,
Here are some explanations about the nextgeneditor extension. It is a new project, that I began two years ago, and we published it yesterday in the Jed.
The project brings some capabilities in relation to this discussion :
- inline editing in the current article and in the custom html modules
- page editing with modules management
- widgets with visual configuration for end users
It needed a huge work and many technical difficulties to achieve this goal.
We integrated ckeditor in the project, and used first x-editable library, then our self api to manage inline editing of different kinds (text, glyph, image, module...)

Jean-Marc

[Joerg]

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:14:47 PM UTC+1, Jean-Marc Bouillé wrote:

...and we published it yesterday in the Jed.

Just curious - The JED says "Last updated: Feb 12 2016, Date added:May 07 2015." Did you submit it to the JED in May already and it took the JED team 9 months to publish it?

[Jean-Marc Bouillé]

No, in fact, I first submited the extension the 7th may 2015. It didn't pass the automatic validation. While fixing that, we decided to improve the extension. I tried it among some of my clients.
It appeared that to be really usable and complete we needed to go further with many more parameters and capabilities. We worked six more monthes, and submitted the extension again the 9th december 2015.

It took in fact 2 monthes to be published into the Jed, because I didn't found first the way to see the current tickets.

I hope this is clearer for you.