W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2005

Re: Simple template-based editing

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:18:06 -0700
Message-ID: <018301c5c62e$5c4e7c90$3201a8c0@Terra>
To: "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 04:12:54PM -0700, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> Bert,
>> I would like to ask question common to both html::contetEditable and
>> css::editable solutions:
>> How edited content supposed to be saved/sent?
> First of all, forget about forms. This has nothing to do with them.
> Forget about clients and servers, too. I'll come back to them later,
> but you don't need them.
> The goal is simply to create an HTML file with an HTML editor (or an
> XML file, but let's take HTML) and to make that as easy as possible.
> Many editors (Dreamweaver, GoLive, Nvu, Quanta, etc.) provide
> templates. But their template formats aren't interchangeable, even
> though most of them are very similar and simple in functionality. So
> why not create a generic solution?
> Then the answer to the question of how to save the file after editing
> is clear: just press the "Save" button.
> Back to servers and clients, because editing files remotely with HTTP
> PUT is a wonderful experience that is hard to imagine until you have
> tried it. (Unfortunately, Nvu makes it more complex than needed; in
> Amaya, there is no difference between saving remotely or locally.) If
> the template you are editing is a file on some server, then the Save
> button by default should save back to the same location on that server
> (or to the "Location" header in the server's response). That is what
> HTTP PUT is for. If the PUT is successful, all you get back is a
> simple "OK" (meaning: the file has been installed successfully at the
> URL you gave). Which is quite different from a GET or POST, which give
> you back a new document, but don't change the files on the server.

Well, theoretically I agree with you. Practically we are getting problems 

Web site consist of content and environment. Different group
of actors are responsible for their updates. In 99% of cases
there is no such entity as the template in solid form.
Lets take a look on typical application for contentEditable - Blog.
There is no static "template" for editing blog article in principle.
Environment of such article is a dynamic content.

IMHO:  In any case WYSIWYG website editors are nonsense in terms
of CSS. The only one thing which is really make sense is
WYSIWYG content editor producing pure HTML. Such content being inserted in 
place will
be styled by content environment.
IMHO #2: Ideal Web Page Editor Aplication is user centric web site engine 
with the htmlarea(s). Conceptually
it is too far from desktop applications you've mentioned.  With full respect 
to their authors,

Just as an illustration of the concept:
this page
is dynamicly wrapped version of pure HTML:
which was created in WYSIWYG content editor and saved on the server
by hitting "Save" button.
I have two folders synchronized - local and remote - so it is really "Save" 
and not "Upload".

Andrew Fedoniouk.

> Bert
> -- 
>  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
>  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
>  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
>  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Saturday, 1 October 2005 02:18:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:21 UTC