Re: Suggestion for Enhanced Component Editor in Eclipse

From: Mike Schrag (mschra..dimension.com)
Date: Wed Apr 18 2007 - 11:27:21 EDT

  • Next message: Kieran Kelleher: "Re: Suggestion for Enhanced Component Editor in Eclipse"

    I don't use dreamweaver, so I don't know what restrictions it has ...
    While the syntax looks like xml namespacing, it's not ACTUALLY (that
    is, there's not a definition of the tags in any DTD or otherwise at
    this point). Maybe DW doesn't care about this, though. If that's
    true, then yes, it would probably make integrating with DW easier.

    That said, I tend to not use this syntax exclusively. What I like
    about Wonder's impl is that you can mix and match, so you can pick
    whatever style makes sense for any particular tag. I almost always
    use inline for WOString and WOConditional (using the shorter wo:str
    and wo:if), but i rarely use it for anything that has more than 2 or
    3 bindings. You CAN, though, if you want.

    As far as being a step backwards in terms of purity, I guess one
    might argue that it wasn't necessarily pure to begin with. If you've
    ever had to use WOGenericContainer or WOGenericElement, then you're
    already crossing that boundary. If you ever pass in a class, style,
    or any other attribute binding into any of the wrapper elements,
    you've crossed that boundary. For that matter, if you use a
    WOString, you're often crossing that boundary. Maybe some people
    have it really tight and they just give HTML folks the HTML file and
    they work on the WOD, but I suspect (unscientifically) that's not
    really actually all that common (just because it is so hard to stay
    "pure"). But I'm just picking fights here ... It is generally "less
    pure". Meh. If it makes my life easier, who cares. The next
    version of the HTML editor in WOLips will be able to parse and
    validate them just like in .wod's, so it will be fine.

    ms

    On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:46 AM, David Avendasora wrote:

    > Am I wrong, or would using this syntax make use of Dreamweaver for
    > design much easier as you could make a ThirdPartyTag library that
    > would make WYSI-kinda-WYG layout easier. Using the standard syntax,
    > there is only one WO tag <webobject> with this you could tell
    > Dreamweaver to present a much more specific representation of the
    > tag in the design layout, etc.
    >
    > Now, from a dividing-code-from-presentation perspective, this is a
    > step backwards though, right? What are the pitfalls of using this
    > syntax instead of the HTML/WOD combo?
    >
    > Dave
    >
    >
    > On Apr 18, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
    >
    >> This is from Project Wonder ...
    >>
    >> On Apr 18, 2007, at 1:24 AM, Andrew Lindesay wrote:
    >>
    >>>> e.g. <wo:WOString value="$someContent" escapeHTML="$false" />
    >>>
    >>> Good grief -- when did this happen?
    >>>
    >>> cheers.
    >>>
    >>> ___
    >>> Andrew Lindesay
    >>> www.lindesay.co.nz
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Apr 18 2007 - 11:27:38 EDT