The comparison on the project page is horribly wrong.
1) The stated "additional JavaScript size" is wrong.
2) All (external) editors just depend on Wysiwyg API from now on. You don't need another module besides Wysiwyg API. Free Rich Text Editor can be used with Wysiwyg API as well.
3) IMCE is completely outside of the scope for this chart.
4) You should note that a "built-in file manager" buys you nothing with a CMS like Drupal. Aside from that, both FCKeditor and TinyMCE have a built-in file manager.
5) "Drupal's permission page" is 100% the wrong place for rich text editor permissions. An editor is not tied to a user role. Other editor integration modules did this before, and that's the reason why Drupal lacked proper WYSIWYG support in the past.
...
Comments
Comment #1
drupalnesia commented1) The stated "additional JavaScript size" is wrong.
This is right, the additonal lib of FCKeditor is 3.8 MB
2) All (external) editors just depend on Wysiwyg API from now on. You don't need another module besides Wysiwyg API. Free Rich Text Editor can be used with Wysiwyg API as well.
Using your Wysiwyg API is ok, but I like to extend module to support many task, like having my own File Browser, File Sort and Create Subfolder, all these can not supported by yout Wysiwyg API.
3) IMCE is completely outside of the scope for this chart.
File/Image manager absolutely needs to support easy way to upload/manage image/file.
4) You should note that a "built-in file manager" buys you nothing with a CMS like Drupal. Aside from that, both FCKeditor and TinyMCE have a built-in file manager.
FCKeditor and TinyMCE has no built-in manager works in Drupal.
5) "Drupal's permission page" is 100% the wrong place for rich text editor permissions. An editor is not tied to a user role. Other editor integration modules did this before, and that's the reason why Drupal lacked proper WYSIWYG support in the past.
I like to use "Drupal's permission page" because I need to implement module to a user role like core module did.