On 01/29/2010 04:08 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > On 01/29/2010 03:04 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >> Hi devs, >> >> Right now JavaScript extensions are included when a document is rendered >> in WYSIWYG edit mode. This has both advantages and disadvantages. >> >> Pro: If the output of a macro depends on a JavaScript extension, then >> the result of rendering that macro will be the same in view mode and >> (WYSIWYG) edit mode. >> >> Con: If the JavaScript extension is not aware of the edit mode then it >> can modify the DOM document outside of the read-only macro markers which >> leads to unwanted changes in the content of the edited document (i.e. >> the modifications done by the JavaScript extension are saved). Such an >> example is http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-4665 . >> >> WDYT? Should we limit the WYSIWYG in order to make the editing safer? >> >> I'm +0. > > +1 > > If some script should be executed in edit mode, I think a possible > solution would be to add a new field to the JSX class to tell if the > extension should be used in edit mode, too. By default it should be > false. The problem is that this doesn't fix file extensions, and those > are the ones that cause problems now. So, at least for file extensions, > they should always be disabled in edit mode. >
Actually we can use a parameter for file extensions too, in the extra params parameter. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
