- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:11:35 +0200
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Bert Bos wrote: (interesting stuff elided) > 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 > > to indicate that an element is a template or not? ('Auto' means it > depends on whether the server supports PUT or an equivalent method. > Better keywords welcome...) This is interesting, allow me to make sure that I've understood it correctly. Say I have this page and I only want the users to be able to perform some editing inside the <div> of class "content", and in that they can put <p> or <img>, and inside <p> only <em>, <strong>, and <img> (to keep things simple). Would that result in: div.content { editable: one; } div.content > p { editable: one-or-more; } div.content > img { editable: zero-or-more; } div.content > p em, div.content > p strong, div.content > p img { editable: zero-or-more; } ? The bit I don't really get is in which way is this an improvement over schema languages that already exist and unlike XML Schema are actually easy to implement such as RelaxNG (or RelaxNG Compact, which has a simple, non-XML syntax) or Schematron? The implementation complexity difference between what you propose and what they do is not very high, yet they can also usefully constrain several other aspects that you may be interested in (such as the general ones you mention). Also, there are existing deployed implementations of precisely that based on those technologies, eg. guided editing in nXML, oXygen, etc. -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2005 14:11:36 UTC