On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, you wrote:
> Using Turbine layouts (even with the <html>, etc. tags) within Dreamweaver
> will not gain much, you must expand the navigations and screen in order for
> the page to look remotely as it is intended in Dreamweaver. Therefore I do
> not see the benefit of having <html> in the layout, if you need to run the
> screen through Turbine in order to see the page.
Ok. I yield to your wisdom :-). I personally have not had to deal with
this, I'm just trying to make sure it won't be a problem down the
road.
> I was thinking it would be good if somehow, Turbine could be set up to
keep
> a modularized version of the site and a flattened version. The
basic rule
> would be that changes to the screen content would get carried
over to the
> modularized screens, the rest of the flattened document
would be marked off
> limits to editting and if it was these changes would
get thrown out when the
> two versions are synched. It would probably be
good to set a flag on which
> way screen content was brought into synch.
But this would take some effort
> to engineer and it would probably be
substantially easier to build to a
> WYSIWYG editor that was Java aware.
And would be much more satisfying if we
> could build it to a OSS editor.
This is interesting. What you mean by modularized version?
--
dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
