Re: Simple template-based editing

Bert Bos wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2005 16:11, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>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; }
> You're reading much more into it than I meant.
> If div.content is editable, its content is game: you can change the 
> content in any way you like. The other rules in your example thus have 
> no effect.

Oh ok, thanks for clarifying this. In this case it's not powerful enough 
for the sort of needs that I have in mind. The reason I'm interested is 
because I think that defining how something may be edited with simple 
rules based on selectors is a nice way of creating a simple editor. It's 
not stylistic, but it can use CSS selectors or XPath.

> I think specifying the syntax of an element's content is out of scope. 
> You can edit the content or you cannot, that's it. The syntax is 
> implicitly restricted in some way already, because the result after 
> editing should be a valid document.

Yes, but if you look at what people are doing out there with HTML in 
textareas you'll see that they restrict the content to much less than 
what could be valid, which I think is an interesting use case. Also, 
generic XML editing inside the browser is of high value since you can 
then edit documents with different semantics that the server can then do 
other useful things with. XForms can do that, but I'm interested in any 
option that doesn't send the vendors running away screaming... Also 
XForms is married to XML Schema, which is the least useful option you 
can think of (as well as the hardest to implement by two or three orders 
of magnitude) for document edition.

Robin Berjon
   Senior Research Scientist

Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 09:51:28 UTC