Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Ugo Cei wrote: >>In the meantime, I've been experimenting with the XUL <editor>, >>but if I'm not mistaken it is not possible to instantiate an editor >>if the XUL file is not loaded from a "chrome://" URL. This pretty much >>rules out the possibility of producing pages for Mozilla with an >>embedded editor from Cocoon, doesn't it? :( > > > I don't picture us using <editor> at all, so this shouldn't be a > problem. > > <editor> is something they use for HTML composing and email composing > and it's an all or nothing editing-type, we don't want that. > > When they will implement contentEditable for mozilla (remember to vote > on bugzilla for that! bug# 97284!), you just have to write a bunch of > javascript around that feature and turn that attribute on (either on the > server side or on the client side)... but I see no needs to use XUL for > that.
Of course ... when and *IF* contentEditable will be implemented, we will use it. Using <editor>, just like mozblog (http://mozblog.mozdev.org) does, is a stopgap solution that would have been better than <textarea> for my blog project, given the current status of things. Ugo P.S. your memory is getting worse, I already told you I voted for bug# 97284. I was number 30 or so in the list of voters ;). -- Ugo Cei - Consorzio di Bioingegneria e Informatica Medica P.le Volontari del Sangue, 2 - 27100 Pavia - Italy Phone: +39.0382.525100 - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
