- From: Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:56:05 -0400
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Bert Bos wrote: > > 1) Exactly one element: you can edit an element's content according to > the DTD > > 2) Zero or one: you can edit the content or delete the element. > > 3) Zero or more: you can delete the element, edit its content and also > make copies of the element (and edit their contents). > > 4) One or more: you can edit the content and make copies but at least > one element must remain. > > (The way NVu currently does this is specific to HTML 4.01 Transitional > and the template files themselves aren't valid SGML or XML, so they > cannot be used for the online use case I outlined above.) > > So how about a property in CSS3 > > Name: editable > Value: auto | one | zero-or-one | zero-or-more | one-or-more > Initial: auto > Inherited: no Hi, Should the value just be "yes | no"? You mention in point one (and I assume the others?) that you can edit according to the DTD (ugghh - why not RNG or XSD? why go backward?). If the DTD needs to be used (I think it would), what happens when a CSS rule conflicts with the DTD/Schema. It seems like when this is fleshed out it would be like RNG's compact syntax. Problems will occur when you want to move something. That is a pain in the butt. BTW, a couple of editors that do this type of thing now (with the non-standard contentEditable attribute) are: Xopus - uses XML Schema and works only in IE http://xopus.com Bitflux - uses Relax NG and works in Mozilla based browser http://bxe.oscom.org/ best, -Rob
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2005 13:56:16 UTC