Quoting Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > (this is getting very interesting but slighlty OT - maybe we should > start a > new list where we could also discuss the requirements of a content > editor?) > > I agree with Steven that installing yet another browser is mostly seen > as a > PITA by administrators. > > But IMHO a content editor could be seen and "marketed" as a separate > application - basing it on the Mozilla code base (assuming it makes > sense) > would not necessarily mean saying "Mozilla can now be used as a content > editor" but could be "we have a content editor, and the code is based on > Mozilla, by the way".
Yes, this is the way to go. > > I don't think people would resist installing a new client application if > it > brings measurable benefits regarding content editing. Just don't tell > them > it's a new *browser*. Absolutely. Many use cases for CMS like apps will really benefit if you can base your content on Schemas. Sure there are cases where a "free form HTML editor" will be appropriate but often content writer will be supposed to write the content based on a fixed Schema. > I don't know enough about the Mozilla code to be positive about this, > but > maybe there are other code bases that would be better suited to creating > an > XML content editor - Amaya, Swing, OpenOffice, others? As I can see it today (sure I'm not the dancing on all floors) mozilla promises the most adaptable open source code base to build such an editor upon. Giacomo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
