[opencms-dev] Bitflux xml editor

[Tillman, James]

> James,
> you might be confusing the issues. 

Perhaps.  I do tend to do that :-)

> The non-free editor you 
> refer to is a
> source code editor (glorified text editor) - not a WYSIWYG 
> editor as such.

Well then we must have both downloaded and used different software.  I went
to this site:

http://bitfluxeditor.org/

...and saw that, although bitflux is going to close its source, the current
version is open.  Then I downloaded the open source version and found that
it was an HTML/Javascript-based XML editor that runs in Mozilla.  The
example that comes up with the application is an XML document that appears
in _TRANSFORMED_ format.  So it is a WYSIWYG XML editor, as stated on the
web site itself, not a source code editor.  It's only in alpha, but it
looked pretty darned cool to me.

Now, granted, the application couldn't be used as is, but it's free, open
source, and could be integrated into OpenCMS without much trouble I think.

> THe WYSIWYG editor used by opencms is an html editor and is 
> free as it is
> microsofts and bundled in IE. 

This is just not true.  At least not from my experience with the beta.  I
was required to download a shareware activeX control that nags me and loses
focus after I type about 10 characters in the editor every stinking time I
pull up a page.  Quite annoying, and definitely not free.

The ironic thing is that you are correct that the ability to do this is
inherent in IE, but it appears that the OpenCMS developers decided to take a
shortcut and choose a proprietary tool for WYSIWYG editing, instead of
rolling their own version using IE's scripting capabilities.  I'm sure there
were reasons for this, one of which might have been time-to-market.

> The advantage of a XML WYSIWYG editor is validation against 
> DTD/XSD and the
> ability to apply a XSL stylesheet to give the user a visual 
> experience when
> editing XML content.

Yes, but the current editor in OpenCMS doesn't do that, of course, while the
bitflux editor does.  I'm missing your point here, I think, unless it was to
prove mine... :-)

In retrospect, I don't really think I was confusing the issue.  It looks to
me like it was already a bit fuzzy and needed discussion.

jpt