> I'm completely sold on Turbine. I'm evangelizing here at
> the office, and being in a position to dictate some policy,
> I have the power to make decisions... beware, here I come!
Lucky you are. I'll need to find a different employer for that ;-(
(Not that this is an ad ;-))
> Anyway... Some people here have been asking how well does
> a Turbine WM- (Velocity-) based template integrate with
> those wimpy HTML editors.
Actually much better than any tag-based engine (ASP, JSP, PHP etc.) because
in most cases wm code will not confuse editor since it does not look like
tags.
> I have never touched one of those,
> and do my HTML programming by hand, so I have no idea how
> they work, but there are some obvious questions that pop up:
>
> * How does WM code appear on the HTML editor? I'm guessing
> it will just appear as text preceded with a $ or #, right?
If you place it where text is allowed then yes and that's good part.
Otherwise (if you place it in the table but not in a cell or inside a tag)
the results may vary from editor to editor. Generally nothing good.
> * Say you want to embed an image on a page. Is there a way to
> make the editor show the image (that would mean referencing
> the image in a way the editor can find it) and also make
> the SRC a valid one under Turbine?
Many such editors support mapping for preview. For example if you have your
templates under c:\webapps\yourapp\WEB-INF\templates and you are running
tomcat etc. you can set the preview mapping to
http://localhost:8080/yourapp/screens/template ... So that when you want to
preview a template it will be requested through the webserver/turbine and
all images/lins etc. should appear correctly (not sure how authentication
will affect this).
>
> * Same thing for URLs and HREFs.
see above
>
> * I have heard scary tales of how these editors will take
> control over your HTML, meaning they will rip it apart
> and put it back together in a form you would never
> recognize. I can see how this could have potential impact
> on the order of execution of WM calls (not that depending
> on this is a very clever idea anyway). Anybody has any
> experience in this regard?
I believe that if you really have to use them ( ;~( ) you are better off
using them for initial mock-up stage only without putting much of WM code in
and then take a normal editor and add the code.
> * Any other good or bad comments on the idea of using an
> HTML editor for developing WM templates? Any one you could
> recommend?
I believe it is generally a bad idea although I understand that sometimes it
may be useful to save time (I am not sure though that will actually save you
any time...) or in order to delegate some work to someone who can only use
such an editor.
fedor.
_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
