- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 20:19:37 +0200
- To: <public-html@w3.org>
At 12:46 +0300 UTC, on 2007-08-03, Mihai Sucan wrote: [...] > I don't "like" the above scenario. Having the document as valid, is ... > practically... at the "mercy" of the generator meta-tag. I do not consider > this anywhere close to "appropriate". Fully agreed. Some other problems are - The lack of definition of "WYSIWYG editor". (Even a Word imitator like FCKEditor may present content as it would be rendered, or only partially so, or as uninterpreted markup, depending on (level of) javascript support, and settings of both the authoring system and the client. In which cases would the "WYSIWYG editor" signature be required/not allowed?) - The fact that that "WYSIWYG editor" is usually an embedded app within a larger app, not writing at all to <head>. So it is the host app that needs to 'know' whether content was provided through an editor that is to be considered "WYSIWYG". My impresson of authoring systems is that they try to avoid such complicated interweaving. For instance because one one the same system is designed to allow embedding different editors (be they "WYSIWYG" or not). Is there a strong enough need to impose such implementation challenges to authoring tools? - How should the host app deal with situations in which content is entered through a "WYSIWYG editor", than edited through a non-"WYSIWYG editor", or vice versa? Note that this issue was raised a while ago on the whatwg mailing list. The question why an authoring tool in specific would need to be allowed to insert <font> was not really answered IIRC. If I'm not mistaken, the one or two authors of "WYSIWYG editors" that participated didn't appear to see a real need to be allowed to output <font>. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 18:21:58 UTC