> My statement "HTML DOM model is not suitable for
> WYSIWYG editing" meant not physical limitation but
> logical one. I agree with you - theoretically it is possible
> to create some WYSIWYG HTML editor that will be
> asymptotically close to some ideal.
>
> But somewhere on the way to it system
- Original Message -
From: "Adrian Sutton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dave Raggett"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Karl Dubost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:
> Speaking of which, if there was an area that needs significant work to
> make it more usable for tools. At the moment most of the
> recommendations
> are way too vague to be able to check them specifically - often humans
> would have trouble determining if something was compliant or not, let
> al
> Still, reality is that there is more and more legislation around the
> world
> that requires at least certain parties to ensure their sites be
> accesible,
> and thus does force people to learn to do things more right. So even
if
> a
> semantic editor would require its users to learn some things,
At 17:33 -0500 UTC, on 2007-02-25, Adrian Sutton wrote:
>> [...] I don't think we should be too afraid to offer an authoring
>> tool that works a little different from what people are used to [...]
>
> Well, you can try and see what users think of it. For better or worse,
> forcing people to learn
> Well, not *think* as in "make it hard", no :) It needs to be as
> 'natural' as
> possible[*]. Still, part of what people consider "natural" is what
> they're
> used to. I don't think we should be too afraid to offer an authoring
> tool
> that works a little different from what people are used to
> | > I agree that HTML DOM is not suitable for WYSIWYG editing.
> |
> | I beg to differ. It is true that an editing style sheet may be
> | needed to avoid problems with delivery style sheets that use the
> | display and visibility properties to hide content, or which use CSS
> | positioning to lay
At 16:37 -0500 UTC, on 2007-02-25, Adrian Sutton wrote:
[...]
> Dave Ragget wrote:
>> Some short cuts are common place, whilst others seem to be
>> very specific to the particular tool. Another challenge for browser
>> based editors is that the browsers define their own short cuts and
>> the edit
> Indeed, and that is why it takes a lot of time, and study of
> existing tools. With that in mind do you have any suggestions for
> what tools I should look at?
Not overly as it depends on which area of the editor you're currently
interested in and various other factors. The biggest thing to chec
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
But there are no consistent WYSIWYG HTML/CSS editor applications
in the wild that support in full actor model "Writer without
knowledge of HTML and CSS". Simply because of the nature of HTML
and CSS.
I think people need to have some knowledge of t
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Raggett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Adrian Sutton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Karl Dubost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 4:03 AM
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
In reality WYSIWYG principle has one hidden part:
What You See Is What You Will Get and What You Can
Change Consistently by Using Solely UI Facilities/Tools.
That is real meaning of modern WYSIWYG interpretation.
I think I understand what you mean,
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
| On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
|
| > I agree that HTML DOM is not suitable for WYSIWYG editing.
|
| I beg to differ. It is true that an editing style sheet may be
| needed to avoid problems with delivery style sheets that use the
| dis
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Raggett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Adrian Sutton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Karl Dubost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:11:15 +0100, Dave Raggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Raggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Adrian Sutton wrote:
...
>> I don't say that to deter you - I'm actually very keen to see what
>> you come up with. The main me
At 17:15 -0500 UTC, on 2007-02-21, Adrian Sutton wrote:
[...]
> When people get into writing they want to focus purely on what they are
>writing and they don't want to have to think for a second about how the
>authoring tool they are using wants them to work. If you want the tool to
>succeed you
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
I agree that HTML DOM is not suitable for WYSIWYG editing.
I beg to differ. It is true that an editing style sheet may be
needed to avoid problems with delivery style sheets that use the
display and visibility properties to hide content, or which
Adrian Sutton wrote:
Did you notice in your development of an WYSIWYG HTML editor things
from the specification that
- were very difficult to implement?
- were missing in the HTML language itself to make it easier to
control the editing?
There are a couple of things to note here
At 21:45 -0500 UTC, on 2007-02-21, Adrian Sutton wrote:
[...]
> The only real problem we've seen in terms of HTML limitations for
> implementing the editor is a lack of granularity in terms of
> contenteditable. There is some demand to be able to specify an
> uneditable template to use within the
Dave Raggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Adrian Sutton wrote:
I am therefore devoting a lot of my time into developing a
new kind of authoring environment that combines a semantic view with
a wysiwyg view, and which will use dictionaries to gener
- Original Message -
From: "Adrian Sutton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Karl Dubost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Authoring Re: several messages about HTML5
Did you notice in your development
> Did you notice in your development of an WYSIWYG HTML editor things
> from the specification that
> - were very difficult to implement?
> - were missing in the HTML language itself to make it easier to
> control the editing?
There are a couple of things to note here. Firstly our edit
Hi adrian,
Le 22 févr. 2007 à 07:15, Adrian Sutton a écrit :
As someone who writes a WYSIWYG HTML editor for a living - I wish
you the very best of luck, you're going to need it. Writing an
editor is one of those problems that seems really easy until you
get into it, then it starts looking
> I am therefore devoting a lot of my time into developing a
> new kind of authoring environment that combines a semantic view with
> a wysiwyg view, and which will use dictionaries to generate the
> markup that few of us can be bothered to write directly.
As someone who writes a WYSIWYG HTML edit
At 16:18 +0200 UTC, on 2007-02-21, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2007, at 07:14, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
[...]
>> My feeling is that many people can understand and work with that
>> slightly abstract concept, but they need tools that make it easy.
>
> People also need to believe that they
At 09:29 + UTC, on 2007-02-21, James Graham wrote:
[...]
> The difficult problem is not to produce an editor that encourages the
> use of semantic markup, it is to produce an editor that encourages the
> use of semantic markup and would be chosen in preference to e.g. MS
> Frontpage or Dreamw
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:47:50 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> As people got printers and desktop publishing a
> few people made the crazy multi-font unreadable pages that were all
> the rage in the mid-80s
Same goes for the newspaper industry for the first part of the 20th
century
--
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Dave Raggett wrote:
I am therefore devoting a lot of my time into developing a
new kind of authoring environment that combines a semantic view with
a wysiwyg view, and which will use dictionaries to generate the
markup that few of us can be both
Dave Raggett wrote:
> I am therefore devoting a lot of my time into developing a
> new kind of authoring environment that combines a semantic view with
> a wysiwyg view, and which will use dictionaries to generate the
> markup that few of us can be bothered to write directly.
This project sound
Thanks Charles for that really inciteful response. I very much agree
with the need to get authoring tool support for semantically richer
markup. Microformats are great - but how many people find that they
can't be bothered with that level of detail, especially when using a
wysiwyg style of edit
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:40:09 +0100, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
>> Thank you Ian. Just one follow-up question. You wrote:
>>
>>> ...We could require editors to do this, but since nobody knows how
>>> to do it, it would be a stupid requirement. ...
>>
31 matches
Mail list logo
