Guys,
Let's move this thread to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Editor vendors might have different requirements because they tackle
different scenarios in the application domain. However, Neutron could
be a good starting point to formalize a common denominator - despite
of that the spec currently covers what Wyona needs for Yulup in the
first place (which is only natural).
Bests
Thomas
On Feb 2, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Michael Wechner wrote:
Christian Stocker wrote:
On 1.2.2007 17:35 Uhr, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
Michael Wechner wrote:
Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
no, i'm not talking about passing the data from a client
browser. we
won't find a common denominator for that, since every editor is
doing
it's own thing here.
and this is exactly what Neutron tries to solve. Instead writing
for
each editor a dedicated connector implement Neutron once ;-)
i like the idea of neutron, but your argument is a little strange. i
might as well suggest that all editors implement a bxe-compatible
mode.
(now that would be frightful indeed :)
What'ss wrong with the way BXE loads and saves the XML data?
that it does't differently than TinyMCE or Kupu or ... but of
course the same is wrong
with all the other editors ;-)
I don't
say, everyone should do it that way (it was never intended for that)
and I certainly don't vouch for using that as a "standard", but
all it
does is GET and PUT the XML file and to which URL should do that is
defined in the config XML file.
saying the interface is GET and PUT isn't enough specification.
It's one minor step better saying that HTTP is being used ;-)
One needs to know where the access points are, what needs to be
sent, what format, how do the responses have to look like, the
status, etc. ....
You even could write your own loader/saver classes. If you don't like
PUT and GET...
but this is exactly what a CMS shouldn't have to do
So I really don't see, what's frightful about the loading/saving
part.
But anyway, what do I care, WORKSFORME :)
this is certainly one way of seeing it. So i guess you are not
really interested that anyone else
except you is using BXE ;-)
Well, I would assume the opposite, that you are interested that BXE
is being used
as by many CMS as possible. The easier it is to integrate BXE with
a CMS, then more likely it's being used.
If BXE would support Neutron, then the only thing which the CMS
would have to do is providing a link as for instance
http://foo.bar/bxe?neutron-introspection=some-introspection-
document.xml
and that would be it. Easy for the CMS, isn't it :-)
Cheers
Michael
chregu
but it's the same as with many things w3c: working drafts come
cheap,
it's the implementations that make a new spec.
as nice as neutron seems, it does ring a warning bell that there
are no
other implementations on the horizon. i don't mean to disrespect the
effort, but as it is now, it's just another single-vendor
standard...
that said, i'm all for integrating a complete neutron implementation
into lenya, but it does not really address the current issue of
editor
abstraction.
get the tinymce people to add a neutron front-end, and i will be
dancing
naked on the streets shouting "michi, you da man!" :)
--
Michael Wechner
Wyona - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+41 44 272 91 61
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
