Re: Re: DHTML browsers [was Accessibility]

Hi,

XStandard is definitely a nice XHTML editor. We will probably offer it 
as an option for our users in the near future.  One thing I don't like 
about it is the backend requiring some web services processing (I know 
you don't need web services on the back end and can just process it like 
any XML, but still...). I would rather take the input stream as is and 
save that off. I would also prefer it using an XML Schema or Relax NG 
schema to set the content model.

We have recently implemented Xopus (http://xopus.com) in our soon to be 
released next version. Xopus allows editing of pure XML and gives a true 
WYSIWYG experience. You define the XML with XML Schema so it can range 
from simple to complex structures all the while ensuring the author-user 
is using your content model. It does not use a plugin, but requires the 
latest MSXML (which users might have if they have kept up with 
updates??). You use a combination of XSL and CSS to style the content -- 
use XSL to create the (X)HTML bones and CSS to give it the skin.

Using XML content, XSL and and CSS for a kind of two stage styling gives 
you most flexibility and control, IMO.

best,
-Rob



Austin, Darrel wrote:

>>I haven't worked with many, but even conceptually they all suck as
>>they merge 
>>content with presentation. 
>>    
>>
>
>Right...that's where XStandard was nice. It was pretty much purely a
>semantic markup tool, rather than some sort of page layout tool. FOr
>instance, if you make a table in Xstandard, it assumes you're actually
>displaying tabular data and then prompts for things like table headers and
>such. 
>
>  
>
>>There do not seem to be any hard and fast rules on structuring
>>content into 
>>templates.  Personally I don't like seeing each paragraph as a field,
>>but I 
>>also don't like lazy templates that are just wrappers for the WYSIWYG
>>with one 
>>or two other fields.
>>    
>>
>
>I agree. I'm not sure what the solution is. In our case, we're building our
>own CMS and as we notice 'chunks' of content that appear can be further
>segregated, we go back in and do so. However, that's not ideal and certainly
>wouldn't work for gigantic enterprise wide CMS tools.
>
>Until then, I'm trying to push more and more semantic markup on
>people...starting with proper use of MS-Word. There's a total lack of
>understanding of how to even properly structure a document in Word. Using
>lists for actual lists, using heading styles for actual headings, etc.
>Hopefully, by starting there, we'll get folks ready to jump into the web
>updates.
>
>Another thing I try to do is hide all formatting from the content editors. I
>prohibit them from making color choices or font choices, etc. I find this is
>frustrating to the them, but hopefully, over time, they'll learn to focus on
>the content and not worry as much about the layout (since that's our job).
>
>  
>
>>Unfortunately, anything using ActiveX is not an option as business
>>users may 
>>not have admin rights on their machines and SMS updates can blow
>>those things 
>>away.
>>    
>>
>
>Yea, we're really hoping Xtstandard can come out with a non active-x
>version. My fingers are crossed.
>
>Ultimately, the solution may revolve around XML templates. The more I work
>with XML (I'm pretty much a newbie to all of that) the more I see the
>disadvantage of storing content using the limited palet of HTML tags for
>structure.
>
>-Darrel
>  
>