Quill does not support arbitrary modifications to its contents with `innerHTML`Īs it leads to surprising and buggy behavior. You need to set or edit the underlying HTML directly with arbitrary HTML. Quill follows the policy of many other Javascript libraries of supporting the latest two versions of each major browser. Nevertheless,ĬKEditor or TinyMCE might be a better choice if: Quill's users have already added customizations to embed slide decks,Īlthough different between them, CKEditor and TinyMCE are compared together because they differ from Quill in similar ways. Quill allows the definition of entirely new formats and content not previously imagined. In additional to supporting traditional formats commonly found in word processors (like bold, italics and lists), Quill considers the web as a target output, not just paper. It allows customization and new additions of formats and content. Quill maintains an internal document model and does not rely on the DOM as the source of truth, allowing it to offer far more powerful and relevant APIs for text editing. Most of CKEditor and TinyMCE's APIs offer little more than syntactic sugar on top of existing DOM APIs. It offers a substantive API on top of the DOM. It is still possible today to crash an entire browser using `contenteditable` APIs. Left to their own interpretations, each ended with different implementations that featured their own quirks and a proliferation of bugs,Įarning `contenteditable` deserved notoriety. Browsers never fully agreed on or specified the complete scope of `contenteditable`. It treats `contenteditable` as an input, not a complete editor or API. Quill introduces several new ideas that separate it from these traditional editors: CKEditor and TinyMCE are both very widely used, having been around for over a decade.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |