Re: wysiwyg editors

[email protected] wrote on 27/06/2004 12:08:33 AM:
>From Matt:

> Technically, the problem with browser differences appears to stem from
> the editor using execCommand() to add markup. If it manipulated the DOM
> directly we should get the markup we want, as Andrew's <strong>
> workaround shows.

There's more to consider. The editors are not just markup generators 
there's also a lot of other editor behaviour that is provided. For example 
the ctrl+b to toggle bold/unbold. Even if you wrote your own button for 
'bold' the keyboard shortcut is still available and still does the same as 
the standard execCommand('bold'). The editors support all the standard 
keyboard short cuts for formatting/editing. 

For total control you'd have to disable or intercept all these key combos.
 
> execCommand() appears to have only one advantage for adding tags: it
> takes care of undo/redo for you. But since not every command can be done
> with it - such as inserting a table - we'd really need our own undo/redo
> stack anyway.

The undo/redo stack includes both use of the execCommand('bold') and the 
keyboard shortcut, which is useful. What is also useful regarding the undo 
stack is the copy/cut/delete/paste functions are also included. I don't 
know if it would be easy to code you own undo stack to also intercept 
copy/cut/delete/paste.

The other bahaviours are the table editor (allows you to 
resize/insert/delete rows and cells with graphical widgets *at least in 
Moz it does, IE doesn't seem to have it, I guess that's the reason for the 
table plugin) and the image editor (allows you to drag and place/resize 
images graphically).

So when using these editors you're not just making use of the execCommand 
commands available you're using the whole kit.

Also in using them you're limiting yourself to Moz and IE.

>From Alex:

> So I've got a monkey wrench to throw in the works:
>                I don't think producing HTML is helpful.

Perhaps netWindows doesn;t need to make that choice. Maybe the useful 
thing to do it provide a bunch of editing widgets and the users of 
netwindows can make the choice.

In my position I'm faced with the problem that the users of my apps want 
to be able to edit content like they do in Word (I often get asked 
'where's the spellchecker?'), but I want to retain control of visual 
style. Like Matt I too think an XML editor would be excellent. Something 
like Authentic
http://www.altova.com/products_doc.html . It's great because it's free but 
it's not because its closed source and IE only (for the broswer plugin, 
although there is a stand alone client).

I can see a place for an editor like HTMLArea, one like Textile and one 
like this one: 
http://www.lotusgeek.com/SapphireOak/LotusGeekBlog.nsf/d6plinks/ROLR-629RVF 
(see at the end, it is stupidly IE only but doesn't need to be) which is 
simple but offers a live preview. If they were all netWindows widgets you 
could choose which one suited your app best.

Anyway, enough jibering from me! I'm not even a developer here! I only use 
the sig/slots library, what the hell am I making all this noise for?

:)

Cheers,
Andrew Tetlaw

Bligh Voller Nield
http://www.bvn.com.au
p: (07) 3251 5778
f: (07) 3852 2544


<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
<b>
Please Note
</b>This document, including attachments, is only intended for the addressees and may contain privileged or confidential information. Unauthorised use, copying or distribution of the document or any part of its contents, is prohibited. If you receive this Email in error please notify us by return Email or telephone. We will reimburse you for any reasonable expenses incurred in meeting this request.</font> 


_______________________________________________
The netWindows developers list: [email protected]
http://netwindows.org/mailman/listinfo/devel_netwindows.org