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

Re: Simple template-based editing

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:05:13 +0200
Message-ID: <433D6239.1040104@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Robin Berjon wrote:

> The downside of an attribute is getting multiple views of the same 
> document, one editable, one not (or further, with different parts 

No, this is never going to happen. I worked for Grif and Grif was able
to render multiple views of the same DOM. None of our clients at that time,
and that included people doing collaborative editing, aeronautics, defense,
pharmaceutical industry and governments, none of them ever needed to have
editability on per-views basis because it would imply a security problem.

> editable). And I doubt that it would be possible to argue for putting it 
> in the XML namespace.

I said xml:editable as I could say foobar:editable as soon as foobar namespace
is a generic inclusion for all xml dialects. We're speaking of something that
is completely dialect-agnostic here.

> I think attaching it using selectors or XPath is great -- they don't 
> have to be limited to style. Making it a CSS property is another 
> question and I agree it shouldn't be there.

Just think of user stylesheets... Editability should definitely NOT
be overridable. This is an author-only feature.

Using a selecting mechanism would be cool, yes. But being able to say
a given element is editable w/o having to give it an ID would be cool too...

</Daniel>
Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 16:06:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:40 GMT