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"?

> 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.

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.

> 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.