Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: > Anca Paula Luca wrote: >> Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> To explain the issue lets consider the following scenario: >>> >>> * Edit a new page with the new WYSIWYG editor. >>> * Type "foobar" and place the caret as in "foo|bar", where the pipe >>> represents the caret. >>> * Press the Bold button or type CRTL+B in order to start typing bold >>> text at the current insertion point. >>> * At this moment, the HTML should be "foo<strong>|</strong>bar" where >>> the pipe represents the caret. >>> >>> The Problem >>> >>> In Mozilla it's easy to place the caret as suggested. In IE it's >>> impossible (this weekend I tried all sort of things and search >>> desperately on Google..). What I can easily do in IE is either >>> "foo|<strong></strong>bar" or "foo<strong></strong>|bar". The workaround >>> that I found is to use a special space symbol >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-width_non-joiner inside the strong tag >>> (before, it had an empty text node inside) and place the caret just >>> after this special space symbol. >>> >>> PROs: >>> * When the use will type the text will be bold. >>> >>> CONs: >>> * Although the space character is not visible you have to jump over it >>> while navigating with the arrow keys. >>> * Although we can remove these special symbols before converting to wiki >>> syntax, the user will have them when copy&pasting. >>> >>> I'm in favor of using this special space symbol. WDYT? >> I would be for some limitations and inconsistencies between browsers (like >> not >> being able to start writing bold but only select and boldify in IE) than for >> inserting an obscure character and mess up copy-paste and navigation. >> I really don't like the idea of this character, even if it won't endup in >> the >> actually saved content. > > That would mean we would have different implementations at the high > level whereas using this special symbol allows me to have the same logic > in the application at the high lever and different implementation just > at the lower level (only different implementations for the Range class > -- all that is build on top of it is cross-browser).
What if we have the same logic highlevel and, well, as much as I hate saying it, buggy behaviour on IE? How buggy would that make it? > > Thanks Anca, > Marius > >> Happy coding, >> Anca >>> Thanks, >>> Marius. >>> >>> P.S.: I need your opinion ASAP, thanks! >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devs mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
