Comment » First Impressions of Textile
Background
When implementing a CMS for clients, one of the most important issues to consider is how the (often non-technical) end users will format entries. There's a few different ways this is done, but as a default many CMS only allow plain or HTML formatted text. Or, they may include a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editor by default. However, WYSIWYG editors are notorious for creating bad code and having shaky browser support. When using a WYSIWYG editor to type entries, I often find myself going into the code view to fix all of the annoying little mistakes the editor makes in syntax.
Enter Textile. Textile markets itself as "a humane web text generator". I first found out about Textile while exploring the open source CMS Textpattern, which uses Textile by default for formatting entries.
Strengths
I admit I had my doubts about this system. I try to approach a CMS the way the typical client would, so to be up to consideration for future use Textile needed to be extremely easy to understand and use...and it was. The system is very straightforward and gives a good way of outputting standards-compliant XHTML.
It is also a very flexible system. A Textile reference sheet is available, which contains all available options. As you can see it is very extensive, and probably more than most people need (like most of the attributes). The tag list on the Textile homepage is sufficient enough for most users.
The readability of a Textile entry is superior to that of HTML. The markup is usually just a few letters or characters instead of bulky HTML tags. It is like little notes all over the page for how something should be formatted.
Special Characters
Oh, and need to input special characters? No problem. It isn't like HTML where there are obscure numerical codes to remember (or look up). Instead, the characters are formatted very similarly to how they are written. A Textile character reference sheet is available for those that need a guide.
Weaknesses
The hardest thing about Textile is explaining to clients about semantics. Most people coming from the world of Microsoft Word and web WYSIWYG editors are unaware of the concept of meaning, rather than creating a look. In this aspect Textile's learning curve isn't that far off from basic HTML. But once the concept of semantics is understood, using Textile is not a problem.
Another weakness for Textile when compared to WYSIWYG editors is that authors can't automatically see their markup to the text as they write it. It is much easier to read than HTML, but they can't see how a heading will look, or the full image within the text while they are writing. They must preview the page before submitting. Some people may do fine not having the visual style present while writing, while others may freak out if their entry doesn't look exactly like the finished product.
If you know and are comfortable with HTML, Textile is of little use unless you don't like reading HTML or the thought of saving a few keystrokes while typing an entry interests you.
Conclusion
Textile is the best solution I've seen thus far to the problem of allowing non-technical users to write on the web using valid XHTML. And unlike TinyMCE and FCKeditor (the top two WYSIWYG web editors) there are no bugs or browser support issues to worry about either. (I know FCKeditor doesn't work with Opera, and I've heard TinyMCE has issues with Safari). For web text entry, Textile is the happy medium be
tween HTML and WYSIWYG.
