Hi, On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/13/09 8:16 PM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Jerome Velociter<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On 11/12/09 3:54 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: > >> > >> [snip] > >>>> > >>>> BTW is it such a good idea to load extensions in edit mode? > >>>> I'm not very convinced, since some extensions could affect the content > >>>> of the edited DOM, leading to weird content. (Think about the addSizes > >>>> extension of the SX tutorial for example > >>>> > >> > http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/SkinExtensionsTutorial). > >>> > >>> There were some complains regarding the fact that the live table > doesn't > >>> look the same in edit mode so I had to load the extensions in edit mode > >>> ( http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-3991 ). This is just an > >>> example. Once we have transformation markers any JSX will be able to > >>> change the DOM provided the changes are marked. Also, I'm thinking that > >>> a macro could use a JSX to "draw" something on the page. If JSX are not > >>> loaded in edit mode the page will look different. > >>> > >>> Marius > >>> > >> > >> http://markmail.org/thread/rubnuunk4vd25bzt see :) > >> > >> I don't remember we've voted on that, we probably should have. I'm > >> really not fan of executing the scripts in the WYSIWYG, in the end. > >> Even the "mark DOM changes" technique will not be enough, as we can't > >> control how JS libraries we use do inject their content (typically the > >> lightbox code here) and most extensions are made of/rely on external > >> libraries. > >> > > > > I'm pretty sure we discussed it since I recall discussing about this with > > Vincent about this in the past (maybe 1 year ago, when we started working > on > > the new editor.) Marius eventually implemented full rendering and we > went > > along with it up to today. > > > > It has some great advantages (live macro rendering looks cool in demos) > but > > also some drawbacks. Additionally, I'm afraid that the cost of making > live > > rendering in edition mode work flawlessly will take a *lot* of work given > > the huge complexity and variety of situations that might be encoutered. > > > > For the livetables ( http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-3991 ) I > >> tend to think it would have been enough to have the proper CSS, but not > >> the JS (and have the table would remain empty). I don't see the value of > >> having the tables really work in edit mode. (Except for saying "it's > >> really WYSIWYG"). > >> > > > > I agree with Jérôme here. I think we might have been aiming too high. > While > > it's very cool to have simple macros such as the ToC one execute right > away > > in the browser, maybe we could add a default "executeInEditMode" > parameter > > to all macros that lets the macro authors and/or users state whether they > > want their macros to get executed in the WYSIWYG or to use a placeholder > > instead. > > Well rendering macros and executing javascript code are different > things. I think still in favor of executing macros (though maybe the > parameter makes sense, I haven't though about it too much). > > Executing JS is different, it potentially can affect the whole document > content, and there is no way we will be able to deal with it 100%, even > introducing the transformation markers (how do we manage the extensions > that remove content, can we mark that ? how do we manage external > libraries like the lightbox one that are not aware of the WYWISYG and > its markers ? etc.) > > Jerome. > > > > > In many cases, trying to display what's in the macro / embedded code > leads > > to issues of usability, performance and sometimes plain bugs as > illustrated > > by the livetable example. We're already going back in some cases such as > the > > Flash one. > > > > WDYT? > > > > I don't like too much the strategy that would say "extensions developers > >> have to check if they are executed in the WYSIWYG (I guess it's > >> possible, not tried yet) and adapt the extension behavior accordingly" > >> Feels somehow a bit too complex. > Actually maybe this is a non-issue / best practice to publish for macro writers since it's very easy to write something like: {{velocity}} #if($context.action == 'edit') Placeholder #else JavaScript Code #end {{/velocity}} WDYT? Guillaume >> > > > > I agree. The "don't execute in WYSIWYG editor" parameter for macros could > be > > a solution here. > > > > Guillaume > > > > Jerome. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devs mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
