Re: Summary of the situation with the composition process — thoughts wanted

Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhgari at
Mon Jun 27 12:37:36 UTC 2011

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Jonathan Protzenko
<jonathan.protzenko at> wrote:
> Hi Ehsan,
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
>>> Given that we don't have that many resources to devote to the composition
>>> UI
>>> (2.), this would allow us to cheaply get an updated, more intuitive UI.
>> ckeditor is way more than just the UI for the editor.
>> (...)
>> What are the upsides of taking ckeditor's code, besides getting a new
>> shiny and sexy editor UI really fast? What are the maintenance costs? Do
>> they have tests? Do you have plans to address these downsides? (Note that
>> some of them, such as ckeditor trying to implement its own editing features
>> are pretty intrinsic parts of that project.)
> Well, yes. We have these long-standing bugs, the composition UI is not
> evolving (talking about comm-central/editor here), and we'd like to be more
> attractive to users. Please keep in mind that in the present state, we *do
> not have any resources to devote to this area*. It is fairly natural that we
> should seek to re-use some 3rd-party code. However, after the arguments
> you've brought, I start to feel like CKEditor might not be the best solution
> after all.
> Given all the constraints above, can you think of any readymade editor that
> we could possibly reuse? Are there any plans on the Gecko/Firefox side to
> write such a thing? An embeddable editor for the web with a pre-packaged UI
> could be highly beneficial... (Only talking about the associated UI and
> dialogs here).

Unfortunately I'm not aware of any editor widget projects which can be
a drop-in replacement for the editor UI in Thunderbird.  On the Gecko
side of things, we do not plan on providing built-in UI for the editor
in the near future.


More information about the tb-planning mailing list