- From: Michael Sokolov <sokolov@falutin.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:37:56 -0500
- To: public-html-xml@w3.org
Speaking as a consumer of XML and producer of HTML, I'd like to put forth a use case for the group to consider. Our situation is that on the server side we deal entirely in well-formed XML so we can use the rich toolset that makes available, and because, well that's what our clients give us. On the other hand, our consumers are primarily browser users, so we need to produce whatever browsers will handle in a reasonable way. One area of persistent pain is providing CMS features that enable interactive content editing. This use case was already mentioned; I can provide some detail from an implementer's perspective. We would like to be able to provide our users lightweight WYSIWYG in-browser editing tools that operate on XML, using vocabularies that we control. We have a few choices currently, none of which is ideal: A) render using XSLT in the browser; this is painful due to limited browser support for XSLT B) render in the browser using CSS only: this provides only limited presentation capabilities C) render using a server round-trip; this cripples the immediacy of the user experience D) Use a heavyweight tool (like Xopus) that essentially embeds an entirely separate client-side application in the browser. This might be the best option, but we've been reluctant to invest the not-insignificant license fees and integration effort here. E) Something else we haven't found yet - suggestions welcome! In practice, all the existing lightweight javascript-based editing tools we've evaluated are built for editing (X)HTML, not arbitrary XML vocabularies. As a consequence that's what we generally provide our users (using CKEditor), and we encourage them to edit XML using offline tools which we import server-side. I should mention that it is possible (using CKEditor) to provide a data transformation plugin that converts to/from XHTML, but the effort to produce this has so far been a hurdle we haven't jumped over since it requires a custom parser/serializer to be developed in javascript (which would have to be customized for each XML vocabulary), and the benefit for us of doing this hasn't thus far outweighed the cost. We would really like to provide in-browser XML-based editing, because control over the vocabulary lets us limit user error, it enables server-side processing to render alternate delivery formats, and it allows us to use the same processing and rendering pipelines for user-edited content that we use for our primary content (which we receive as XML). Ideally we'd like to use the same XSLT for rendering in the editor that we do for rendering in our applications. I'm not conversant enough with HTML5 to understand how it might alter this equation, but my perception is that it wouldn't, at least as it stands today. -Mike Sokolov sokolov@ifactory.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2010 09:51:03 UTC