- 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