![Mozilla Mozilla](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/mozilla_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
Bringing WYSIWYG Content Editing To Mozilla 33
whythewig writes "Over the past month two open-source wysiwyg xml editors have appeared - Xopus
from Q42 and the Bitflux editor. Each of these projects tries to bring true wysiwyg editing to Mozilla. From reading various mailing lists it seems that the Wyona project has been instrumental in bringing these two projects out as open source. It also appears that both of these projects will be presented next week at the open source content management conference in Berkeley, California."
i may be biased... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:*I* may be biased... (Score:2)
Interesting but... (Score:3, Informative)
This kind of thing has always been a problem in browser data entry like form posts, but now it's getting more complex and the data is becoming more precious. You can try to mitigate the issue by having an onunload handler, but most ad blockers and other apps like Proxomitron [cjb.net] disable onunload because of its abuse by pr0n and advertising.
Perhaps if this is only used in an app that uses Mozilla technologies embedded inside it--rather than the Mozilla browser with its standard navigational options--there won't be a problem. But it sure is a problem for the demo.
Re:Interesting but... (Score:1)
Not to mention that the 15 minutes really should have been only 2, because even on my Athlon 1.4GHz it takes almost a second for any character I type to appear on the screen. Sorry, but there are some things that Javascript just isn't supposed to do.
And it doesn't even show a cursor. I totally agree that they should just try to use XUL and other "real" Mozilla stuff -- technology that was actually designed to provide user interfaces of this type.
The other question is, what's wrong with Mozilla Composer? It's built into the browser, and provides WYSIWYG editing already.
Re:Interesting but... (Score:2, Informative)
Well, as the page clearly mentions, you should turn on "Caret Browsing (hit F7)", otherwise you won't see a cursor.
I also wonder if the fact that you lose work when hitting the "return" button is because it is only a demo version?
Re:Interesting but... (Score:2, Informative)
I have no idea, why on some machines it is terribly slow... On every machine i tested it until now, it was quite fast and typing stuff was certainly no problem and didn't take a second per character... (I have "only" a 700 MHz box and it is no problem, otherwise I wouldn't release this demo
and it doesn't even show a cursor.
Hit F7...
The other question is, what's wrong with Mozilla Composer?
Composer is only able to produce HTML.. But we want XML, any XML. Big difference in my opinion. It gives you a lot more possibilities than just plain old HTML and takes the burden from editors to know HTML.
Re:Interesting but... (Score:1)
Oops, thanks. I have to admit I didn't really read the instructions or the rest of the page, I just tried it out. Besides those issues, I have to say what you have done is pretty damn nifty.
I still don't know what's making it so slow though. Is there a Bugzilla issue about it - maybe some generic Javascript problem on some machines? Could the fact that I'm running Linux make a difference?
Re:Interesting but... (Score:1)
If anyone is interested, why it's mozilla only, I just updated our FAQ [bitflux.ch] about that.
Re:Interesting but... (Score:1)
you mean you loose the edited data? Yep, this is not taken care of right now but shouldn't be much of a problem to be implemented. And if you turned of "onunload", then it's really your problem
chregu
Weblogging (Score:5, Informative)
I hope this technology makes it over to weblog sites like Blogger [blogger.com] and Xanga [xanga.com]. Both of those sites have excellent tools for IE, but the Mozilla versions of the same tools completely blow goats.
Of course, there are always XUL-based alternatives like mozBlog [mozdev.org] and LiveLizard [mozdev.org], or the very excellent Composite [mozdev.org]. Composite's great - it gives you a WYSIWYG editor for any <TEXTAREA> that Mozilla encounters... using it to make this comment :-)
Re:Weblogging (Score:1)
Thanks you!
Re:Weblogging (Score:1)
wysiwyg? (Score:1)
Re:wysiwyg? (Score:3, Insightful)
T
Re:wysiwyg? (Score:2)
Replacement for Frontpage? (Score:2)
God of all creatures big and small! (Score:1)
Composer (Score:2)
Re:Composer (Score:3, Interesting)
finally, xopus is arguably more "wysiwyg" than most editors who are nothing more than textareas with some formatting buttons. for instance, the NYT of switzerland, neue zürcher zeitung (nzz) [www.nzz.ch] uses xopus to enter articles. journalists see how their articles flow on the page while they are entering it. quite powerful.
hope this helps,
-gregor
Re:Composer (Score:1)
Makes it for example much easier to edit structured content... And you have a lot more possibilities to offer to your editors than with just HTML.
chregu
Re:Mozilla is Dying (Score:1)
Unfortunately, Microsoft owns this space... (Score:2, Informative)
For whatever reason the Mozilla people just don't seem to see the utility in this. Reading through the forums and bugzilla, you'll see dozens of requests for a contenteditable feature, followed by a bunch of waffling about why they can't be bothered (it's usually along the lines of "we're concentrating on end user features"). Meanwhile end users by the thousands are passing Mozilla by because it can't do this.
I wrote an in browser WYSIWYG editor which can be invoked on any block in a page. It works beautifully. It's 90% cross platform (most of the development was done in Mozilla on Linux). However, it only functions fully in IE because there isn't any good way to create a contenteditable block in Mozilla. You can hack it in (as some projects mentioned here have done, and I've done myself), but it is hackish, doesn't work reliably, and tends to break with new Moz versions. As proof of concept it's fine, but as a production feature it just ain't there.
Mozilla could make itself the browser of choice almost overnight for potentially millions of users just by making this possible. Why they won't is beyond me, but their stubbornness on the issue is costing them users every day.
Actually, conteditable is supposed to be in 1.2... (Score:2)
I was thought it might make it into 1.1, and will likely make it into 1.2. It doesn't appear to be in the alpha release, but the bug still says they're targeting 1.2 for it.
Re:Actually, conteditable is supposed to be in 1.2 (Score:2)
At one time that bug said it was targeted for 0.9.7, so I don't put too much stock in that. I'd love to see it, but I'll be more surprised if it shows up than if it doesn't.
It's a shame this has been such a PITA with them; all the pieces appear to be there, they just haven't been put together. I've set out on a number of occasions to see if I could do something myself, but when you look at the sheer amount you need to learn about Mozilla internals just to get started, I just can't justify the time. Not when I have an already working alternative which is available on the OS that the majority of my customers are running anyway.
Netscape... (Score:1)
Little Rant... (Score:1)