It may be a fine point that doesn't help with the current issue on the table, but a comment about how I thought about WikiTalk and HTML when I implemented it originally:
It's important to distinguish between whether some WikiTalk objects emit HTML and whether they must emit HTML. In particular, all the ones I built originally (including, especially, the form related ones) we designed to represent an abstraction that could be rendered as HTML or to any of a number of other UI paradigms. I believe this principle no longer holds true given the recent addition of the ability to put in arbitrarily-styled spans and divs, though. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flexwiki- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nathan Jones > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 7:39 AM > To: FlexWiki Users Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Flexwiki-users] Alternate Stylesheet wrap up > > > So, the way I look at it is that stylesheets are a web app feature, > and > > really don't belong in the core. If there's a desire to add something > to > > _NormalBorders, it probably needs a layer of abstraction to allow it > to > > communicate with the web app in a way that can also work in other > scenarios. > > This generally has the benefit of making test easier, too. > > > > Indeed, nothing about HTML should really "leak" its way into the > core. Of > > course, Formatter lives there now, and it's chock full of HTMLness, > but > > that's a design flaw, IMO: it should live in the web app. With the > new > > parser (post-2.0), I imagine the Formatter will get radically > rewritten > > anyway. > > > > OK, so I understand your point, but I wonder what to do about it.... I > don't see how to separate things out so cleanly, given that WikiTalk > is part of the core, but WikiTalk is intimately aware of the fact that > it lives in HTMLland. A lot of the WikiTalk objects spew HTML > directly. > > So I have a ContentProvider that spews WikiTalk and is a Wiki > "object."WikiTalk only has access to a certain number of objects from > the core, and doesn't have access directly to the web app at all, even > though it is pretty HTML-aware. I can obviously make a WikiTalk > ExposedFunction that spews exactly what HTML I need it to (which is > what a fair number do,) but the engine still doesn't have access to > any configuration except what is provided from flexwiki.config via the > FederationConfiguration class, so that doesn't even help. > > I really don't see a way around this. The (wikitalk) content provider > has to do presentation work based on the configuration. The > configuration is in the web app because that's the only configuration > we have. The only link between the configuration of the web app and > the engine is via the FederationConfiguration. So I either use this or > allow the engine general access to the web app's configuration which > seems to really be counter to what you are worried about. > > help! > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Flexwiki-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flexwiki-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Flexwiki-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flexwiki-users
