On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 04:37:33PM -0500, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Florent Daigniere < > nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote: > > > They might be pragmatic but they miss the point. We want to change the > > templating > > engine so that 'web-designers' can use their favourite wysiwyg editor to > > help us come up with a kick-ass design. Code-maintainability and other > > software-engineering concerns are only secondary here... > > > > I don't know how many web designers you've worked with, but I've worked > with a few good ones and they all work directly in css and html - none of > them to my knowledge use a wysiwyg editor. The days of proficiency with > DreamWeaver being a sufficient qualification to call yourself a web > designer are long gone. > > > > GWT doesn't allow that... The only wysiwyg editors I know about are within > > IDEs (Eclipse and Netbeans)... That's not the tool of choice of designers. > > You're still writing JAVA code as opposed to plain HTML. As far as I know, > > from the list of suggested frameworks, only Wicket fulfills this > > requirement. > > > > see: > > https://wicket.apache.org/learn/examples/helloworld.html > > > GWT is more proscriptive, which may be a good thing (why invent an entirely > new HTML widget-set from scratch?), but a designer can still modify its > appearance through css.
Well, you're the one who defends that designers need to be able to touch the HTML... remember? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.devel/26552 Any solution involving GWT is no better than the current fproxy to that regard: designers would have to touch the java code to change the HTML structure. Florent PS: FYI, the current fproxy allows designers to change the CSS very easily. There's an option on the configuration toadlet allowing a CSS file to be read from disk directly.
