15 Feb
2008
15 Feb
'08
9:16 a.m.
But I think it is not an option for most of our users
still
reluctant to
use the XWiki environment. And most of them are Internet Explorer,
Firefox and/or Safari users! So Opera or OmniWeb are not an option
so far.
As long as you rely on the default textarea there's nothing you can
do there or?
I wonder if that would not be a topic for the webAPI working group at
W3C... it is a fairly common request I think.
Le 14 févr. 08 à 23:51, [Ricardo Rodriguez] Your EPEC Network ICT
Team a écrit :
I've tried both, Opera in Windows and OmniWeb in
Mac. I'm impressed
with
OmniWeb performance and the search/replace feature of the zoom
window.
Thanks for the tip.
Cool.
OmniWeb has so much good feature that I do not find its performance
so good anymore (it's just that of safari).
Among others the pictured-tabs are so fantastic that it really makes
it easy to have dozens of windows open without loosing the
overview... that makes it slow ;-)!
Two other very precious features for developers:
- OmniWeb has a so-called error-log where both the input and output
headers can be presented... that is the only platform having that I
have seen and it has helped me debug a large number of difficult
cases. FireBug does it less good I feel.
- OmniWeb and Opera both can "edit in place": just invoke view
source... you get an editor... and that editor can let you preview.
The advantage ? You are in a browser with the same origin and the
same cookies... so you can experiment something client-side (e.g.
changing a form's action from POST to GET) before actually changing
the server. This also helped me often on badly designed web-siute.
I don't get the point of what you are saying about
BBedit and
TexMate. I
am using both, mainly TextMate in Mac OS X. Do you mean they could be
somehow used with XWiki or XEclipse? Thanks!
I can't find it anymore but I had seen James Strachan blogging about
integrating Textmate for all textareas of a browser (might be it was
Safari). That would bring, e.g., syntax coloring.
paul