19 Aug
2008
19 Aug
'08
4:30 p.m.
Vincent Massol wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 5:54 PM, Ludovic Dubost wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> I think currently we can only use the new wysiwyg if we have a page
>>>>> using XWiki 2.0 syntax right ?
>>>>>
>>>> yes.
>>>>
>>> The new WYSIWYG is not bound to the XWiki 2.0 syntax. I have a
>>> XHTMLConverter component with two implementations at this time: one
>>> (fully
>>> working) using Vincent's new rendering module and one (needing some
>>> adjustments) using the old Radeox engine. I could detect the page
>>> syntax
>>> and lookup the right implementation, but is it worth doing? If not,
>>> how
>>> should I react when the new WYSIWYG is forced on a page with the old
>>> syntax?
>>>
>> I have a question: if we use radeox is the new editor going to be
>> better than the old one?
AFAIK, many of the current WYSIWYG's issues are in fact Radeox issues.
Plus, the new editor has less features at this point, so I don't think
it's going to be better with Radeox. I too think the new WYSIWYG and the
new rendering should go hand in hand.
>
> I think it's not worth doing it. When the old syntax is used there
> shouldn't be any way to edit the page using the new WYSIWYG editor
> IMO. That will also provide another incentive to move to the new
> syntax.
>
ok for me if we have a button "convert to XWiki 2.0"
BTW we have the question for the office converter. It's converting
HTML to wiki syntax using the new rendering and thus we get new syntax
only.
We really need to decide what we want. Any comment on my previous email?
Thanks
-Vincent
> However moving to the new syntax is not something so we'll need to
> make it as painless as possible.
>
>
Yes I think we need a button when a page is in xwiki syntax 1.0 to do
"convert to XWiki 2.0 syntax"
> I think this new wysiwyg + the new rendering
may warrant us calling
> this XWiki 2.0 when we activate them and make them the default. We
> could release 1.6 with these as options only that can enabled in the
> configuration. Then release a 2.0 with them enabled by default and
> with the old ones as configurable.
>
>
I agree +1
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
>>> Jerome Velociter wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1. I've seen the new WYSIWYG in action and think it would be
>>>> great/beneficial to have it experimental in 1.6M1.
>>>> What about a parameter in xwiki.cfg to have it always available in
>>>> the
>>>> "editors" panel, like "New WYSIWYG [experimental]" ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jerome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose to move the new WYSIWYG editor into the platform in
>>>>> order to
>>>>> have it as an experimental feature for 1.6M1.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following steps should be taken:
>>>>> * Create a platform/web/wysiwyg module to host the code currently
>>>>> resided
>>>>> in sandbox/wysiwyg
>>>>> * Change templates/edit.vm, templates/editpanels.vm and create
>>>>> templates/editwysiwygnew.vm to make XE aware of the new editor.
>>>>> This way
>>>>> our users will be able to experiment the new WYSIWYG editor on
>>>>> any
>>>>> page,
>>>>> by having editor=wysiwygnew in the edit URL.
>>>>> * Change platform/web/pom/xml and enterprise/web/pom.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's my +1
>>>>> Marius
>>>>>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs