在基于 Web 的应用程序中，哪一个更好、更理想？
编辑：
实际上我正在开发一个社区网站。 所以用户的水平可能会有所不同。 听说 WYSIWYG 编辑器存在 XSS 安全问题。 我也不熟悉所见即所得编辑器及其功能。 据我所知，与其他编辑器相比，所见即所得编辑器的功能较少。 我想到了一个名为“WMD：所见即所得的 Markdown 编辑器”。 它非常容易使用。
因此，安全性和易用性应该存在。 在这种情况下哪个编辑器会更好。
Which one is better and ideal in a web based application?
Edit:
Actually I am developing a community site. So the level of users may vary. Heard about XSS security issues with WYSIWYG editors. Also I am not familiar with WYSIWYM editors and its features. As far as I know the features in WYSIWYM editor is less compared to the other one. I figured one named as "WMD: The Wysiwym Markdown Editor". Its quite easy to use.
So security and ease of usability should be there. In such a situation which editor will be better.
发布评论
评论（7）
如果您的用户可以处理所见即所得，我会同意。
我正在考虑你的系统将是视觉的，也就是说，如果你说某个东西是标题，它看起来就像一个标题（否则 WYS 部分将不适用）。 如果用户必须手动输入标记，那么只有最精明或最技术的用户才能处理它。
我在大多数用户身上看到的是，他们很难在文档中表达他们想要的内容。 他们不认为“这是一个标题”，他们认为“这应该更大、更大胆”。 不能认为“这是一个标题”的人无法处理所见即所得的内容，否则他们会发现很难。
谁将成为您的用户群？ 如果是写学术论文的人，我会选择所见即所得，因为他们处理起来不会有任何困难。 如果是家庭主妇写菜谱，她们可能无法处理，或者会发现它太难了，以至于她们会认为不值得付出努力。
对我来说，理想的是所见即所得，但只有当你认为你的目标用户能够处理它时才这样做，否则你将不得不使用所见即所得。
If your users can handle WYSIWYM, I'd go with that.
I'm considering your system will be visual, that is, if you say something is a title it'll look like a title (otherwise the WYS part wouldn't apply). If the user has to manually type markup, then only the most savvy or technical users will be able to handle it.
What I've seen with most users is that they have trouble giving meaning to what they want in a document. They don't think "this is a title", they think "this should be bigger and bold". People that cannot think "this is a title" can't handle a WYSIWYM or they'll find it hard.
Who is going to be your user base? If it's people writing academic papers I'd go with WYSIWYM because they'll have no trouble handling it. If it's for house wives writing recipes, they may not be able to handle it or they'll find it so hard that they'll decide it's not worth the effort.
For me the ideal is WYSIWYM, but do it only if you think your target users will be able to handle it, otherwise you'll have to go with WYSIWYG.
我个人喜欢所见即所得机制。 我尽可能地将它用于我自己的工作。 我非常喜欢它，所以我尝试让其他人也尝试一下。
天啊，这就像宇航服里的一个屁一样。
愤世嫉俗的我认为这意味着大多数人都被 Word 这样的工具毁了。 每个人都知道要制作一份有意义的文档。 他们还知道有意义的文档是什么样子。 如果看起来不是这样，那么该工具就是错误的！ 实际发生的情况是，这些文档制作者实际上并不知道它们的含义，并且习惯于用漂亮的边框和调整制表位来隐藏这一事实。
不过，我真正认为正在发生的事情是，这些抵制所见即所得的人就是这样，因为这是一种更困难的方式来思考他们已经投入学习的东西。 这是一个高于 WYSIWYG 的抽象级别，尽管不像在 LaTeX 或 HTML 等标记中编写文档那么遥远。 由于他们已经可以在不需要抽象的工具中创建任何类型的文档，因此这只是一个强行推销。
话虽如此，我认为如果可行的话，您应该对用户强制使用所见即所得的方式。 这有一些很好的理由。
I personally love the WYSIWYM mechanism. I use it for my own work as much as possible. I like it so much that I try to get others to try it too.
Boy, that goes over like a fart in a space-suit.
My cynical self assumes this to mean that most folks are ruined by tools like Word. Everyone knows to make a meaningful document. They also know what a meaningful document looks like. If it doesn't look like that, the tool is wrong! What's actually happening is these document producers don't actually know what they mean, and are used to hiding that fact with pretty borders and adjusting tab-stops.
What I really think is happening, though, is that these folks who are resistant to WYSIWYM are that way because it's a harder way of thinking about something they already invested in learning. This is a level of abstraction above WYSIWYG, though not quite as far removed as composing documents in markup like LaTeX or HTML. And since they can already create any sort of document in a tool that requires no abstraction, it's just a hard sell.
That being said, I think you should force WYSIWYM on your users if that is feasable. There are some good reasons for this
检查这个
http://www.wymeditor.org/
Check this
http://www.wymeditor.org/
你能说得更具体一点吗？ 什么样的网络应用程序？ 有多少用户？ 用户会是谁？
总的来说，虽然我在为各种 CMS 实现 WYSIWYG 编辑器方面有相当多的经验，但发现它们存在很大问题，因为客户经常喜欢一遍又一遍地重复格式化其内容，并且经常最终让编辑器生成 HTML劣质。 这会导致各种布局问题，或者只是页面看起来非常混乱，因为每个人都喜欢把自己想象成图形设计师。
如果做得正确，所见即所得可以很好地工作，但真正做到正确需要更多的工作，特别是在考虑 CSS 时。 大多数优秀的编辑器都具有很好的可配置性，并且允许指定给客户对视觉格式的控制程度。
至于它们生成的代码的质量，FCKEditor 和 TinyMCE 非常成熟，并且很好地删除了源代码中不相关的 CRUD，但要准备好为使用所见即所得的客户提供支持当他们的内容看起来不像他们想要的那样时。
由于所见即所得编辑器很像所见即所得编辑器，具有结构格式而不是视觉格式，因此从哲学上讲，我认为它们更好并且更不容易出现问题。 因此，如果客户不需要以可视方式格式化内容，我认为所见即所得必然会减少以后的麻烦。
Stack Overflow 中使用的编辑器是克制所见即所得的一个很好的例子。 您可以直观地格式化内容，但仅限于一定程度。
Could you be a bit more specific? What kind of web application? How many users? Who will the users be?
In general though I've had quite of bit of experience implementing WYSIWYG editors for various CMSs and found them to be quite problematic because clients often like to go wild with formatting their content repeatedly over and over again and often end up having the editor generate HTML of poor quality. This causes all sorts of layout issues or simply pages that look really messy because everyone likes to fancy themselves as graphic designers.
If done properly WYSIWYG can work very well, but it is more work to really get it right, especially when taking into consideration CSS. Most of the good editors are nicely configurable and allow to specify just how much control to give the client over visual formatting.
As for the quality of the code they generate, tools such as FCKEditor and TinyMCE are very mature and do a good job of editing out the irrelevant crud in the source code, but be prepared to provide support for clients using a WYSIWYG when their content doesn't look the way they would like it to.
Since WYSIWYM editors are much like WYSIWYG with structural formatting instead of visual formatting, philosophically I think they are better and less problem prone. So if the client doesn't have a need to visually format the content I think WYSIWYM is bound to cause less headaches down the road.
The editor used here in Stack Overflow is a good example of restrained WYSIWYG. You can format the content visually but only to a certain extent.
如果您的用户精通技术并且了解标记的基础知识，并且您认为他们使用所见即所得会感觉更有能力，那么就使用它。 如果您的应用程序将供技术知识很少的人使用，请使用所见即所得。
If your users a tech savy and understand how the basics of markup go and you think they will feel more empowered using WYSIWYM, then use that. If your application is going to be used to people who have little technical knowledge, use WYSIWYG.
除非您正在开发打印布局工具（即 Indesign 或邮件列表打印工具），否则您最好坚持使用 WYSIWYM。
它可能更容易实现
Web 浏览器是高度可配置的，您可能无法对字体大小等项目进行细粒度控制。
结构是明确的，因此渲染到不同的媒体相对容易。
结构
它避免了用户过度设计文档或他们输入的任何内容的诱惑。
文档结构有利于相关的索引、目录生成和交叉引用。 比较（例如）在 Word 中维护大型索引与在 LaTeX 或 Framemaker 中维护大型索引。
LaTeX 用户（特别是）的轶事经验表明，按结构组织文档可能会生成更好的文档。
Unless you are doing a tool for print layout (i.e. Indesign or maybe a mailing list printing tool) you are probably better to stick with WYSIWYM.
It is likely to be easier to implement
Web browsers are highly configurable and you may not have fine grained control over items like font size.
The structure is explicit so rendering to different media is comparatively easy.
It avoids the temptation on the part of users to over-design the document or whatever they are entering.
Document structure facilitates indexing, table-of-contents generation and cross-referencing where this is relevant. Compare (for example) maintianing a large index in Word with doing in LaTeX or Framemaker.
Anecdotal experience from LaTeX users (in particular) suggests that organising a document by structure is likely to produce a better document.
从我使用 MYSIWYM 的经验来看，我被它的想法和外观所吸引，但后来我被欺骗了，因为编辑器并没有给我一个简单有效的方法来限制用户，例如用户可以在里面插入图像段落...我不希望这样...我想要更多地控制用户可以做什么。
From my experience with MYSIWYM, I was very seduced by the idea and the looks, but I was then deceived to know that the editor didn't give me a simple and efficient way to restrict the user, for example the user can insert images inside paragraphs... and I don't want that... I want more control over what the user can do.