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