On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:55:04 -0700, Chris Parrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds good. I'm looking forward to playing with this. I can see it > being very useful (though I share John's distaste for using WYSIWYG > editors) for my customers. Ditto. How have you persuaded them to use something else? Mind altering drugs, perhaps? ;) Mine have always been convinced that they need to use dreamweaver to manange their hundreds of pages ... I figured that Radiant with a WYSIWYG was the lesser of two evils. > Are you willing to provide any details on the asset management piece you > are working on? I've read about what the others are doing on and none > of the approaches seems quite "right" for my needs. I think that John believes that assets should belong to a page rather than being more universal in nature, but I honestly think that this may complicate things too much for the average user. In my system all assets are available to all pages. You add those assets (be they images, pdfs, whatever) to your bucket (yes, I'm shamelessly ripping off Mephisto's buckets), and then you simply click on them to insert them into your page. The insert behavior is "smart". If you are inserting an image, it will insert an image tag into the page. This tag differs depending on the filter applied to the page ... if you have no filter applied, or if you have my WYSIWYG applied, a basic <img ...> will be inserted into the page; if you use markdown you'll get a  ... you get the idea. If you try to insert a PDF, mp3, etc. into the page (or something else that can't be directly viewed by the browser) the insert behavior will stuck a link into the page instead. Like above, the precise form of this link will depend on the filter that is applied to the page. In short, I think that inserting an asset into a page should be a simple procedure ... the user shouldn't have to think about the markup required to insert it. Since most assets are likely to be images, I want to make it easy for the user to resize those images to suit their needs. The URL of the image determines the size of the image, and the image can only be resized from the admin side of things. I'm still working out the details of how all of this will work, but I've got a basic system in place that seems to work well. It still hits the database to determine if an asset matching the size parameters exists ... I need to work that out yet to minimize the database load. Is this at all like what you're looking for? What are your ideas on the matter? -- Nathan Wright _______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: Radiant@lists.radiantcms.org Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
