there is a lot of surface appeal to a system which combines wysiwyg and light-markup.
and one can do a few simple combinations. but before long, and certainly once you try to tackle some more-complicated features, you find yourself torn by an inherent conflict. starkly put, there is a _difference_ between what you put in, and what you get out, and the question is which one you want to "see". by definition, wysiwyg pictures the "output". but an inability to "see" your input means it can become very difficult to edit that input. the inclination, upon that realization, is to attempt to show "enough" of the input that it becomes possible to do your editing, but that just turns the wysiwyg into cruel illusion. i'm not gonna say that it's "impossible", but i will advise anyone who is tempted to try it to carefully map everything you need to do before you even start to think about coding. if you want to take on the hardest thing first, figure out how to successfully allow a paste from an arbitrary ms-word file... good luck... -bowerbird p.s. even if you solve that fundamental gap, you will also discover that "wysiwyg" carries excess baggage, in that some people think it entails one thing, and other people another, so you're never gonna make everyone happy. p.p.s. all this also applies to contenteditable, in case anybody is mulling that as a solution. _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
