>> As for Xopus, they have or are going to close their >> source. It is disturbing they gained all the exposure >> they did...
Well, a bit disturbing but maybe not all bad; the concept of a JavaScript-based WYSIWYG editor is a good one, they probably spread that concept better than they spread their name. Doesn't seem like an intentional "bait and switch," but more like their initial vision of concurrent open source/commercial development wasn't too thought out. I think that if you really want to do *both* commercial and open source versions of a project the IBM/Apache model is the ideal. It is a good thing the Apache project isn't hosted by Sun or IBM, but exists as a distinct and clearly non-commercial entity. If Q42 were serious about an open source version of Xopus they'd donate it to someone like Apache or start an independent sourceforge effort rather than try to tie its fate up with their commercial efforts. At OSCOM the Xopus developers said that they had an almost instant contribution of WebDAV extensions after putting Xopus out, I can't imagine anyone would volunteer code like that to proprietary efforts. > If correct then this is a disappointment. Can you > provide supporting information? If you go to xopus.org you'll find: "New releases have been halted until sufficient funding is secured." But they still have a download with all of the code, very nice examples. I like their JavaScript for creating a Schema from arbitrary XML for use with the editor, for example. Bitflux, at: http://www.bitflux.ch/editor/ does seem to be still going, and still truly open source. But maybe this capability would be better built into browsers themselves, or browsers should provide a better (standards-based) plugin architecture facilitating XML authoring. Max -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
