On Sun, 19 May 2002, Andreas Raab wrote: > Bijan, > > > > > So I was wondering: How much of an effort would it be to provide > > > something like a "swiki book editor" that does exactly that - namely > > > just giving you a text editor which you can use to edit > > > stuff and then translate its contents into "swiki terms" so that > > > they can be uploaded accordingly. > > > > The biggest bit would be dealing with arbitrary HTML, > > Whaddayamean, "arbitrary HTML"?! I don't want to program, I want to > write TEXT. In other words, if I have to write <b>bold text</b> then I > can as well do it in a browser.
I meant that the more HTML features you support, the more interface work you have to do. For example, if you want to support tables, that is authoring tables, you have to come up with a UI for it (e.g., like Word's or Dreamweaver). That's a lot more work than supporting just the classic Wiki markup (and I mean "support WYSIWIGiclly). > So there ain't no stinkin' HTML as far > as I am concerned. Only text. Text a la MacWrite, text a la Word 6, or text a la WikiText? > Or - in Squeak terms - only instances of > Text. Instances of text can contain HTML :) > > And even that isn't tough if you don't have people adding > > arbitrary HTML from the "edit mode" interface. > > So what?! Scamper can render these pages, can it?! Not well, yet, all of it. > So all it needs is to > provide me that page of text, then allow me to edit it wysiwig-style and > post it back to the Swiki. That's the tricky bit. Well, not tricky. Just needs to be done. I was working toward that in my SqueakNews series. For example, there is, as yet, no good Squeak UI for editing lists. It's *easier* (for me) to write the HTML (and even easier to use a Wiki syntax). Supporting a subset that matches existing capability is easier than supporting the whole shebang where you have to come up with the UI, etc. for it. That's *all* I'm saying. > > > Anyone ever thought about this?! > > > > Indeed. For PWS swiki I had an in squeak swiki editor that used > > SwikiSyntax (i.e., an edit mode). Worked great. > > Well, again, I don't want no "syntax". I'm writing text and text has no > syntax other than implied by the language. Hmm. Fine. One key difference between Wikis and Swikis is that Wikis support a fixed subset of markup whereas swikis generally include arbitary HTML in a variety of ways. A general WYSIWIG HTML editor is a substantially larger project than a WYSIWIKI editor. that's *all* I'm saying. But far be it from me to discourage the creation of a full WYSIWIG HTML editor! Note that Scamper really only takes you part of the way, notably punting on tables and frames. (There is a T-Gen grammar for HTML4.0 floating about, perhaps on a Heeg wiki?) Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
