Re: Simple template-based editing

Daniel Glazman wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, I was unclear, I didn't mean simultaneous views. I was more 
thinking of the same document, unmodified, going through a variety of 
stages. For instance when at the "author" stage you can edit everything 
but when at the "subeditor" stage you can only edit h1,h2...

>> 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.

Sure, any new namespace is a generic inclusion for all XML dialects. The 
'xml' one is special, hence my remark.

>> 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.

Well, presumably the server would check what's been done so it wouldn't 
be harmful per se. Just very rarely useful.

-- 
Robin Berjon
   Senior Research Scientist
   Expway, http://expway.com/