Indeed, and that is why it takes a lot of time, and study of
existing tools. With that in mind do you have any suggestions for
what tools I should look at?
Not overly as it depends on which area of the editor you're currently
interested in and various other factors. The biggest thing to check
At 16:37 -0500 UTC, on 2007-02-25, Adrian Sutton wrote:
[...]
Dave Ragget wrote:
Some short cuts are common place, whilst others seem to be
very specific to the particular tool. Another challenge for browser
based editors is that the browsers define their own short cuts and
the editor needs
| I agree that HTML DOM is not suitable for WYSIWYG editing.
|
| I beg to differ. It is true that an editing style sheet may be
| needed to avoid problems with delivery style sheets that use the
| display and visibility properties to hide content, or which use CSS
| positioning to layer
Well, not *think* as in make it hard, no :) It needs to be as
'natural' as
possible[*]. Still, part of what people consider natural is what
they're
used to. I don't think we should be too afraid to offer an authoring
tool
that works a little different from what people are used to (yet no
At 17:33 -0500 UTC, on 2007-02-25, Adrian Sutton wrote:
[...] I don't think we should be too afraid to offer an authoring
tool that works a little different from what people are used to [...]
Well, you can try and see what users think of it. For better or worse,
forcing people to learn is
Still, reality is that there is more and more legislation around the
world
that requires at least certain parties to ensure their sites be
accesible,
and thus does force people to learn to do things more right. So even
if
a
semantic editor would require its users to learn some things, it
Speaking of which, if there was an area that needs significant work to
make it more usable for tools. At the moment most of the
recommendations
are way too vague to be able to check them specifically - often humans
would have trouble determining if something was compliant or not, let
alone
- Original Message -
From: Adrian Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Fedoniouk [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dave Raggett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Karl Dubost [EMAIL PROTECTED]; whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:26 PM
Subject: RE: [whatwg] Authoring Re: several messages
My statement HTML DOM model is not suitable for
WYSIWYG editing meant not physical limitation but
logical one. I agree with you - theoretically it is possible
to create some WYSIWYG HTML editor that will be
asymptotically close to some ideal.
But somewhere on the way to it system will hit
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
But there are no consistent WYSIWYG HTML/CSS editor applications
in the wild that support in full actor model Writer without
knowledge of HTML and CSS. Simply because of the nature of HTML
and CSS.
I think people need to have some knowledge of
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
| On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
|
| I agree that HTML DOM is not suitable for WYSIWYG editing.
|
| I beg to differ. It is true that an editing style sheet may be
| needed to avoid problems with delivery style sheets that use the
|
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
In reality WYSIWYG principle has one hidden part:
What You See Is What You Will Get and What You Can
Change Consistently by Using Solely UI Facilities/Tools.
That is real meaning of modern WYSIWYG interpretation.
I think I understand what you mean,
- Original Message -
From: Dave Raggett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Fedoniouk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Adrian Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Karl Dubost [EMAIL PROTECTED];
whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Authoring Re: several messages about
Adrian Sutton wrote:
Did you notice in your development of an WYSIWYG HTML editor things
from the specification that
- were very difficult to implement?
- were missing in the HTML language itself to make it easier to
control the editing?
There are a couple of things to note
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
I agree that HTML DOM is not suitable for WYSIWYG editing.
I beg to differ. It is true that an editing style sheet may be
needed to avoid problems with delivery style sheets that use the
display and visibility properties to hide content, or which
At 17:15 -0500 UTC, on 2007-02-21, Adrian Sutton wrote:
[...]
When people get into writing they want to focus purely on what they are
writing and they don't want to have to think for a second about how the
authoring tool they are using wants them to work. If you want the tool to
succeed you
- Original Message -
From: Dave Raggett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Fedoniouk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Adrian Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Karl Dubost [EMAIL PROTECTED];
whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Authoring Re: several messages
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:40:09 +0100, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
Thank you Ian. Just one follow-up question. You wrote:
...We could require editors to do this, but since nobody knows how
to do it, it would be a stupid requirement. ...
Is it due to
Thanks Charles for that really inciteful response. I very much agree
with the need to get authoring tool support for semantically richer
markup. Microformats are great - but how many people find that they
can't be bothered with that level of detail, especially when using a
wysiwyg style of
Dave Raggett wrote:
I am therefore devoting a lot of my time into developing a
new kind of authoring environment that combines a semantic view with
a wysiwyg view, and which will use dictionaries to generate the
markup that few of us can be bothered to write directly.
This project sounds
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Dave Raggett wrote:
I am therefore devoting a lot of my time into developing a
new kind of authoring environment that combines a semantic view with
a wysiwyg view, and which will use dictionaries to generate the
markup that few of us can be
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:47:50 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
As people got printers and desktop publishing a
few people made the crazy multi-font unreadable pages that were all
the rage in the mid-80s
Same goes for the newspaper industry for the first part of the 20th
century
--
I am therefore devoting a lot of my time into developing a
new kind of authoring environment that combines a semantic view with
a wysiwyg view, and which will use dictionaries to generate the
markup that few of us can be bothered to write directly.
As someone who writes a WYSIWYG HTML editor
Hi adrian,
Le 22 févr. 2007 à 07:15, Adrian Sutton a écrit :
As someone who writes a WYSIWYG HTML editor for a living - I wish
you the very best of luck, you're going to need it. Writing an
editor is one of those problems that seems really easy until you
get into it, then it starts looking
Did you notice in your development of an WYSIWYG HTML editor things
from the specification that
- were very difficult to implement?
- were missing in the HTML language itself to make it easier to
control the editing?
There are a couple of things to note here. Firstly our editor
- Original Message -
From: Adrian Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Karl Dubost [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Authoring Re: several messages about HTML5
Did you notice in your development of an WYSIWYG HTML
26 matches
Mail list logo
