13 Nov
2009
13 Nov
'09
8:16 p.m.
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Jerome Velociter <jerome(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On 11/12/09 3:54 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
[snip]
I'm pretty sure we discussed it since I recall discussing about this with
Vincent about this in the past (maybe 1 year ago, when we started working on
the new editor.) Marius eventually implemented full rendering and we went
along with it up to today.
It has some great advantages (live macro rendering looks cool in demos) but
also some drawbacks. Additionally, I'm afraid that the cost of making live
rendering in edition mode work flawlessly will take a *lot* of work given
the huge complexity and variety of situations that might be encoutered.
For the livetables ( http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-3991 ) I
>
> BTW is it such a good idea to load extensions in edit mode?
> I'm not very convinced, since some extensions could affect the content
> of the edited DOM, leading to weird content. (Think about the addSizes
> extension of the SX tutorial for example
>
http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/SkinExtensionsTutorial).
There were some complains regarding the fact that the live table doesn't
look the same in edit mode so I had to load the extensions in edit mode
( http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-3991 ). This is just an
example. Once we have transformation markers any JSX will be able to
change the DOM provided the changes are marked. Also, I'm thinking that
a macro could use a JSX to "draw" something on the page. If JSX are not
loaded in edit mode the page will look different.
Marius
http://markmail.org/thread/rubnuunk4vd25bzt see :)
I don't remember we've voted on that, we probably should have. I'm
really not fan of executing the scripts in the WYSIWYG, in the end.
Even the "mark DOM changes" technique will not be enough, as we can't
control how JS libraries we use do inject their content (typically the
lightbox code here) and most extensions are made of/rely on external
libraries.
tend to think it would have been enough to have the
proper CSS, but not
the JS (and have the table would remain empty). I don't see the value of
having the tables really work in edit mode. (Except for saying "it's
really WYSIWYG").
I agree with Jérôme here. I think we might have been aiming too high. While
it's very cool to have simple macros such as the ToC one execute right away
in the browser, maybe we could add a default "executeInEditMode" parameter
to all macros that lets the macro authors and/or users state whether they
want their macros to get executed in the WYSIWYG or to use a placeholder
instead.
In many cases, trying to display what's in the macro / embedded code leads
to issues of usability, performance and sometimes plain bugs as illustrated
by the livetable example. We're already going back in some cases such as the
Flash one.
WDYT?
I don't like too much the strategy that would say "extensions developers
have to check if they are executed in the WYSIWYG (I
guess it's
possible, not tried yet) and adapt the extension behavior accordingly"
Feels somehow a bit too complex.
I agree. The "don't execute in WYSIWYG editor" parameter for macros could
be
a solution here.
Guillaume
Jerome.
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Guillaume Lerouge
Product Manager - XWiki SAS
Skype: wikibc
Twitter: glerouge
http://guillaumelerouge.com/