Re: WYSIWYG vs. WYSIWYM and semantic usage?

On 25.11.2005 23:23 Uhr, Simon R=F6nnqvist wrote:
> On Friday 25 November 2005 10:13, Christian Stocker wrote:

>=20
>>BXE shows what you mean in a manner that it will look like what you=20
>>will get on the webpage. if you reuse the content on a different palce
>>(PDA, PDF, whatever), it will of course look differently, but I think
>>the users can abstract that.
>=20
>=20
>   My fear (as I mentioned earlier) is that people would be tempted to c=
hoose=20
> the semantic marking according to looks instead of meaning.

Just give it meaningful names, remove bold/etc, and they can't do that :)

>>How would a WYSIWYM Editor look like in your opinion? On the web, I mea=
n :)
>=20
>=20
>   Kind of like LyX. Or let's say kind of like BXE without showing how t=
he page=20
> would look, but instead just indicating the semantics. I think there sh=
ould=20
> be some kinds of web-based WYSIWYM:s around, but I haven't checked them=
 out=20
> yet.

Maybe the tag mode (without wysiwyg formatting) would be something for
you then. It has to be improved (it doesn't do live updates right now),
but that could be a way to what you want

chregu

>=20
>   cheers, Simon
>=20
>=20
>=20
>>On 21.11.2005 14:09 Uhr, Simon R=F6nnqvist wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi!
>>>
>>>The way of the future of information seems to be semantic markup,  bot=
h
>>>when speaking of the web and when speaking of word processing.  That i=
s
>>>marking up content according to what it is rather than what  it should
>>>look like. When speaking of word processing there seem to  be two
>>>approaches to this, the ordinary WYSIWYG (What You See Is What  You Ge=
t)
>>>approach which ordinary word processors have, and the pure  semantic
>>>approach aka. WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean).
>>>
>>>WYSIWYG:s usually offer a possibility to mark up content with style
>>>classes rather than directly saying how each letter, word or passage
>>>should look. (Kind of like using CSS classes instead of in-line CSS  o=
r
>>>FONT-tags.) If you choose to use this possibility explicitly one  coul=
d
>>>say that you're marking up text semantically (as long as the  names of
>>>the classes are of a semantic nature). Then there's also at  least one
>>>purely semantic word processor called LyX, which is a  frontend to
>>>LaTeX. LyX has a so called WYSIWYM (What You See Is What  You Mean)
>>>approach, which means that it doesn't even allow the user  to see the
>>>formatting of the text while typing, encouraging the user  to think
>>>semantically.
>>>
>>>When speaking of web content the Bitflux Editor embraces this  approac=
h
>>>as a WYSIWYG, yet encouraging the user to use semantic  markup more th=
an
>>>any other WYSIWYG I've seen.
>>>My question is: What advantages and disadvantages does this approach
>>>have compared to a pure WYSIWYM?
>>>
>>>I think it may be an advantage for the user to have a feeling of what
>>>the content is going to look like already at the time of typing it.  B=
ut
>>>on the other hand it may tempt the user into using inappropriate  mark=
up
>>>in trying to achieve a sertain look, which anyways should be  up to th=
e
>>>CSS-designer to decide (at least for the sake of  consistency). Anothe=
r
>>>problem occurs if one is going to reuse the  conent in different media=
s
>>>with different formatting (ie. different  styling for print), then the
>>>WYSIWYG is nothing but an illusion.
>>>
>>>What experiances or thoughts do you have on this? Do you btw. have
>>>experiance with any web-based WYSIWYM:s?
>>>
>>>  cheers, Simon

--=20
christian stocker | Bitflux GmbH | schoeneggstrasse 5 | ch-8004 zurich
phone +41 44 240 56 70 | mobile +41 76 561 88 60 | fax +41 1 240 56 71
http://www.bitflux.ch | [email protected] |  GPG 0x5CE1DECB
--=20
bx-editor-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.bitflux.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/bx-editor-users