> Vincent Massol wrote: >> On Aug 18, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >> >> >>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 5:54 PM, Ludovic Dubost wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> I think currently we can only use the new wysiwyg if we have a page >>>>>> using XWiki 2.0 syntax right ? >>>>>> >>>>> yes. >>>>> >>>> The new WYSIWYG is not bound to the XWiki 2.0 syntax. I have a >>>> XHTMLConverter component with two implementations at this time: one >>>> (fully >>>> working) using Vincent's new rendering module and one (needing some >>>> adjustments) using the old Radeox engine. I could detect the page >>>> syntax >>>> and lookup the right implementation, but is it worth doing? If not, >>>> how >>>> should I react when the new WYSIWYG is forced on a page with the old >>>> syntax? >>>> >>> I have a question: if we use radeox is the new editor going to be >>> better than the old one?
AFAIK, many of the current WYSIWYG's issues are in fact Radeox issues. Plus, the new editor has less features at this point, so I don't think it's going to be better with Radeox. I too think the new WYSIWYG and the new rendering should go hand in hand. >>> >>> I think it's not worth doing it. When the old syntax is used there >>> shouldn't be any way to edit the page using the new WYSIWYG editor >>> IMO. That will also provide another incentive to move to the new >>> syntax. >>> > ok for me if we have a button "convert to XWiki 2.0" > >> >> BTW we have the question for the office converter. It's converting >> HTML to wiki syntax using the new rendering and thus we get new syntax >> only. >> >> We really need to decide what we want. Any comment on my previous email? >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >> >>> However moving to the new syntax is not something so we'll need to >>> make it as painless as possible. >>> >>> > Yes I think we need a button when a page is in xwiki syntax 1.0 to do > "convert to XWiki 2.0 syntax" >>> I think this new wysiwyg + the new rendering may warrant us calling >>> this XWiki 2.0 when we activate them and make them the default. We >>> could release 1.6 with these as options only that can enabled in the >>> configuration. Then release a 2.0 with them enabled by default and >>> with the old ones as configurable. >>> >>> > I agree +1 > >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>> >>>>>> Jerome Velociter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1. I've seen the new WYSIWYG in action and think it would be >>>>>>> great/beneficial to have it experimental in 1.6M1. >>>>>>> What about a parameter in xwiki.cfg to have it always available in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> "editors" panel, like "New WYSIWYG [experimental]" ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Jerome. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I propose to move the new WYSIWYG editor into the platform in >>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>> have it as an experimental feature for 1.6M1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The following steps should be taken: >>>>>>>> * Create a platform/web/wysiwyg module to host the code currently >>>>>>>> resided >>>>>>>> in sandbox/wysiwyg >>>>>>>> * Change templates/edit.vm, templates/editpanels.vm and create >>>>>>>> templates/editwysiwygnew.vm to make XE aware of the new editor. >>>>>>>> This way >>>>>>>> our users will be able to experiment the new WYSIWYG editor on >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> page, >>>>>>>> by having editor=wysiwygnew in the edit URL. >>>>>>>> * Change platform/web/pom/xml and enterprise/web/pom.xml >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's my +1 >>>>>>>> Marius >>>>>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> >> > > > -- > Ludovic Dubost > Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ > XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com > Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
