Hello, is there any particular reason why you used this very basic HTML editor for templates? I mean DotNetNuke is as much of a framework as it is CMS, it provides universal controls for extension developers to use. I took great deal in personalizing and configuring my CKEditor to make me more productive in DNN and almost all extensions honor it. Just Advanced Login doesn't, makes personalizing templates a lot harder (honestly one used is on par with notepad). I made my templates in plain HTML already, but I'm sure it would benefit everyone if they could use their preferred HTML editor.

Ok fair enough I guess. It's no big deal, most modules don't supply a template editor whatsoever so I'm still glad for what is there don't get me wrong. It's just incosistency that gets into my hair. I created a sandbox page with CKEditor instance just for purpose of designing templates in the future. (It doesn't create gaff, I know exactly what it does and is capable of and I can say for this purpose its better than the visual studio or any other offline tools).

But to address your concerns, DotNetNuke thought of editor's HTML gaff (which many HTML editors do add) it's the sole reason why there is radio switch between "Rich Text Editor" and "Basic Text Box" (which has also radio switch between Text/Html/Raw to let it know what you actually pasted in it). This makes better sense than yet another HTML editor (now imagine more modules each having a different one). I just think you should provide a way for users to use preferred editor, doesn't have to be enforced (NBStore is even using checkbox to switch between provider and simple multiline textbox for template editing).

But if it's not possible or desirable then it's your call. Just wanted to know what your thoughts are and whether it may be implemented or not. I won't press this any further, my users don't see it and I can live with it, it's still a great module . Thanks for your time.