3 ms·

tiptap comes without a graphical user interface. It’s an API and you have to build the gui. Are you sure headless is so wrong?

lelanthran 5y ago
> tiptap comes without a graphical user interface. It’s an API and you have to build the gui. Are you sure headless is so wrong? Unless I misunderstood the example, all you have to do is instantiate it to make it work with a default look. If "using the API" is headless, then everything is headless because they all have an API, including things like Qt, WxWidgets, etc. This is obviously not the case.
- hanspagel 5y ago
  3 out of 80 examples have styling applied for demo purposes. The package comes without CSS and markup as explained on the frontpage. > Headless > It’s headless and comes without any CSS. You are in full control over markup, styling and behaviour
nulbyte 5y ago
> It’s an API and you have to build the gui. It has an API, but after a quick peek at the page, I wouldn't say it 'is' an API. I'd call it a library.
- gumby 5y ago
  Do the entry points of a library no longer constitute its “API”? That is the very origin of the term.
nmstoker 5y ago
Yes, I'm confident it's wrong because it re-use a word in a way that will confuse. It implies it'll be used without a GUI and the first thought is not to think "oh, they must mean it doesn't come with its own GUI". Lots of others things that have an API do not get called headless - presumably as they're aware of the existing use of headless and thus don't want to confuse people. Maybe you could explain it's a backend for an editor. Or maybe "unstyled"?
kemayo 5y ago
Headless is definitely wrong. I saw the title of this story and assumed that tiptap was going to be a component that somehow backed up various WYSIWIG editor-clients. That would be headless. (It's even useful -- the transaction system + collaboration server is theoretically a thing that could back up other clients, after all, though in practice it's going to force enough design decisions onto the clients that it's not really worth it.) Tiptap does come with a graphical user interface, insofar as it looks like the most minimal possible use of it (from your "Minimal setup" example) will create a contenteditable surface to write in. Said surface is the "head". I'd consider "flexible", "customizable", or "unopinionated". "Unstyled" was suggested, but although it's true I think it's misleading -- the need to construct your own toolbar goes beyond what that implies.

lelanthran 5y ago

> tiptap comes without a graphical user interface. It’s an API and you have to build the gui. Are you sure headless is so wrong? Unless I misunderstood the example, all you have to do is instantiate it to make it work with a default look. If "using the API" is headless, then everything is headless because they all have an API, including things like Qt, WxWidgets, etc. This is obviously not the case.

hanspagel 5y ago
3 out of 80 examples have styling applied for demo purposes. The package comes without CSS and markup as explained on the frontpage. > Headless > It’s headless and comes without any CSS. You are in full control over markup, styling and behaviour

nulbyte 5y ago

> It’s an API and you have to build the gui. It has an API, but after a quick peek at the page, I wouldn't say it 'is' an API. I'd call it a library.

gumby 5y ago
Do the entry points of a library no longer constitute its “API”? That is the very origin of the term.

nmstoker 5y ago

Yes, I'm confident it's wrong because it re-use a word in a way that will confuse. It implies it'll be used without a GUI and the first thought is not to think "oh, they must mean it doesn't come with its own GUI". Lots of others things that have an API do not get called headless - presumably as they're aware of the existing use of headless and thus don't want to confuse people. Maybe you could explain it's a backend for an editor. Or maybe "unstyled"?

kemayo 5y ago

Headless is definitely wrong. I saw the title of this story and assumed that tiptap was going to be a component that somehow backed up various WYSIWIG editor-clients. That would be headless. (It's even useful -- the transaction system + collaboration server is theoretically a thing that could back up other clients, after all, though in practice it's going to force enough design decisions onto the clients that it's not really worth it.) Tiptap does come with a graphical user interface, insofar as it looks like the most minimal possible use of it (from your "Minimal setup" example) will create a contenteditable surface to write in. Said surface is the "head". I'd consider "flexible", "customizable", or "unopinionated". "Unstyled" was suggested, but although it's true I think it's misleading -- the need to construct your own toolbar goes beyond what that implies.