Perhaps a better use of resources would be to add these "missing" layout/formatting features directly into Wave? Improve the existing WYSIWYG features of Wave, in other words, without giving up and reimplementing it elsewhere? Many users of a web publishing tool may find the editor capabilities in Wave to be perfectly adequate for their needs. Where additional styling hints may be needed, you can use an extension/robot to add annotations. These won't be visible in the editor without some system of rendering plugins, but your export process can probably do something useful with them.
It's possible that the publishing goal can then be worked on independently of the editing goal. David On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Olreich <[email protected]> wrote: > A gadget for display makes sense, a gadget for editing essentially > skips the entire idea of collaborative editing (WYSIWYG editing makes > it much more difficult to do things collaboratively, as that's a ton > of rendering without canvas). I disagree with WYSIWYG in general > though, as I've used Dreamweaver quite a bit, and it promotes inline > styles, and does not promote semantic code, even with CS4. A WYSIWYG > editor would be good, but doesn't exactly leverage the abilities of > wave from what I can tell. > > On Nov 19, 12:49 pm, David Nesting <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Jason Livesay <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > in a Wave. I just wanted to mention again that I personally would put > more > > > effort into the gadget and WYSIWYG side of things than to the robot and > > > markup side of things. I feel > > > > So, I don't mean to dissuade anyone from working on things designed like > > this. I'm really interested to see how this approach turns out. > > > > The chief complaint I have with a gadget-oriented approach is that you > start > > abandoning the services already provided by Wave. You can no longer > > leverage spelly, or linky, for instance. You have to re-implement your > own > > editor within the gadget. At that point, the only thing you're using > Wave > > for is (presumably) to store the resulting document. You might be able > to > > save yourself some work and just implement this as a stand-alone web app? > > Are there other ways we can continue to leverage Wave but approach this > in > > a gadget-oriented manner? > > > > David > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Wave API" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<google-wave-api%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Wave API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-wave-api?hl=.
