> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Quinn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 15:30
-- snip > At 2:48 pm +0100 7/3/02, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > >The Wyona guys also have form-based editing... which no matter what, I > >can't get to like. The fact that I can't make something 'strong' in the > >middle of a form makes me puke, no matter what. > > This is the kind of thing I am _aiming_ for with <slash-edit/> > Well, I need to defend Martin's HTML form editor a little, as he won't do it. I know that it's not really impressive, but at least you *can* emphasize parts or insert links or even tables (!) anywhere you want, because the editor supports XHTML in all input fields. The only thing missing ATM is a check for the well-formedness of the XHTML, if you make a mistake you can bring the whole application down (arrgh!), but I am working on that right now, and hope to finish it next week, if I get the chance to work with Wyona some more (if I don't, somebody else will finish it surely). Also, I believe that having a HTML-forms editor is always a good fallback, as for most other solutions, you will have to do some browser and platform specific hacks, which might need upgrading each time a new browser version comes out. On the other hand, I agree that the Xopus-kinda-stuff is immensely more sexy, and the Wyona CMS will definitely have at least one way to do some fancy inline editing. Even a way to do style editing in the same wysiwyg, inline way is planned for the future, as the general belief is that you cannot really rely on designers to be able to write proper XSL stylesheets. Just this morning, we have also been discussing about something like a Velocity2XsltTransformer. Then, at least, designers would have the possibility to use commercial tools like Dreamweaver to do their stuff. Any comments on that? > >Sure, you can write 'structured text' and let the system parse it... > >yuck! we can do better than that. > > **| Yea ||^$£||I dont't want to |*|have|*| to || -- write -- like this > either ;) > > But you could make some very simple vocabularies that would be > useful, like > auto paragraphs, auto BRs, maybe things like !!this is strong!!, > who knows, > people have to start playing with it and come up with what is appropriate > to them. > I don't think that inventing new languages all the time is helping the development. We should use something that is already there, and easy to use, like Velocity or XHTML for example. Any other ideas? > I still want to be able to have editors accessing link and image > glossaries > and the like in their content, and simple stuff like strong and emphasis, > so I am still aiming to make this work in normal forms. > > >There's no way out: Mozilla is the key. We must find a way to implement > >Xopus concepts into Mozilla. > > That would be wonderful! > Mozilla forever! If only the mail client would support Ctrl-Enter for sending mail (sigh!) ;-) Cheers, Memo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
