Hi Christian,
[Christian Stocker Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:57:39AM +0200]
> - WYSIWYG
>
> WYSIWYG is a big word, almost like CMS :) ... We see XML not only as a
> storage format which replaced some "old" database/template systems (in
> perl/php terms), but as a great way to allow more formats besides HTML
> like SVG, PDF, WML, RSS etc... And then "real"-html-wysiwyg is suddenly
> not thaaaat important, especially not if you are editing content.
I agree but this doesn't automatically mean that you need XML on the
browser side. Especially not if it gets overly hard to use it in
a stable way :-)
> Then also, what does real Wysiwyg mean? If you style your XHTML with
> CSS or your XML, what's the difference? That's what CSS was invented
> for and here Mozilla is on the right track. Btw: the SlideML CSS shows
> that by example.
Style sheets for XML *are* nice. But IE is not going to have it soon,
is it?
> - Why the XML/XHTML mix?
>
> The first reason was speed. With this approach, we don't have to do an
> XSLT Transformation everytime we change/append/delete a node, but let
> the browser do it with it's DOM-tools. This also makes navigation and
> inline-xml-stuff much easier to handle. Furthermore, if you just want
> to edit your xml and give a shit about html-output, you can take a very
> simple xslt, provide a proper CSS and can start editing it.
Sorry for repeating stuff from other mails, but ... why does it matter
so much if transformations take place on the server or client side?
The main work seems not to be the "transport" but a decent interactive
editor on the frontend. If that is really achievable with XML/XSLT/CSS
and the mozilla API than it's a good idea (at least for Mozilla:-)
time-will-show'ly yours,
holger
--
bx-editor-dev mailing list
bx-editor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.bitflux.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/bx-editor-dev
|
