SiteMason Announces Support for Midas
Friday March 14th, 2003
Ryan Smith writes: "SiteMason has announced full support for Midas editing in their CMS system. There's a press release about it on their press page." SiteMason is a Web design and content management solution. Midas is Mozilla's new API for rich text editing in webpages. A demo of Midas is available.
#1 This is good news...
Friday March 14th, 2003 12:00 PM
Really good news, way to go Mozilla team!!! This is ideal for all those Mac orientated companies, finally an online editor available on their platform, or what about our linux friends? This is excellent! They really put some effort into getting this to work :)
#6 Re: This is good news...
Saturday March 15th, 2003 12:33 AM
It works great under 1.3 on Linux.. ;-)
#2 Another good example of Midas
Friday March 14th, 2003 3:35 PM
Friday March 14th, 2003 5:49 PM
Very nice, great to see features in Mozilla that the community can use, features like this are definitally the future, great to see support picked up so quickly by web developers;
"We have designed it to match the existing features of the MSHTML editor while also adding on more advanced Mozilla-only functionality such as relative font sizing and table creation."
Friday March 14th, 2003 7:48 PM
Is there some reason this won't work in 03/04 Phx?
Does anyone know what build it starts to work with in Phx?
#5 Re: Phx?
Friday March 14th, 2003 9:56 PM
> Is there some reason this won't work in 03/04 Phx?
Because it uses Composer. Composer is compiled out in Phoenix. So no Midas in Phoenix.
Saturday March 15th, 2003 6:06 AM
What happened to contentEditable that was being worked on with the range selections? That needs Composer? Or was never finished? Or works as well for editing?
These and more questions are available for download in a zip file if you prefer...
#8 Re: contentEditable?
Saturday March 15th, 2003 9:05 AM
Any serious editing stuff in Mozilla will be built on top of the Composer backend.
#12 Re: Re: contentEditable?
Saturday March 15th, 2003 4:32 PM
Okay, but what does that mean? contentEditable can't be done with the composer backend? AFAIK, IE's implementation uses the same MSHTML component as their designMode does, so that wouldn't seem to make sense...
I've been following this for a while now (a couple of years, actually) and there has always appeared to be some real resistance (from Mozilla folks) to doing cE, but never any really good explanation as to why. If you look at bug #97284 you'll see that the majority of people don't just want general WYSIWYG capability, they specifically want contentEditable functionality. There's a reason for that.
I've been told a dozen times that anything I can do with contentEditable I can do with an editor in an iframe, but it just ain't true. I've got a cE based editor which is very nice, and which my clients find to be a joy to use. I'm trying to duplicate its operation with Midas, but the kludges I'm having to employ to get anywhere close are really ugly, and its operation is not nearly as smooth. An iframe based editor just can't compete with the kind of seamless integration cE makes possible.
Most people want cE for the purposes of doing content management through the browser. Right now, IE owns that space. If all Mozilla ever does is allow for what amounts to a stripped down version of Composer in an iframe, that won't be changing any time soon.
#15 What it means
Sunday March 16th, 2003 7:01 PM
> contentEditable can't be done with the composer backend?
Not easily. The composer backend operates on the assumption that it has the document all to itself, which is simply not true with contentEditable.
If IE's designMode is a special case of contentEditable (rather than the other way around), then doing them with the same backend is easy. Mozilla already has designMode (in the form of Composer), so doing that is easy; but Composer was not really designed to operate on parts of a document.
It may well be true that IE's stuff is easier to use; I really don't care for either set of functionality, I'm just describing the Mozilla implementation, with no comments as to quality (again, because I do not care, hence have not used it). ;)
#16 Re: What it means
Sunday March 16th, 2003 11:43 PM
Humph. Not what I wanted to hear, but I guess I have to accept it. However, that won't stop me from commenting further while I've got somebody listening. ;)
"If IE's designMode is a special case of contentEditable (rather than the other way around), then doing them with the same backend is easy."
Well, obviously, if I knew enough to really comment intelligently on that I'd probably be able to pore throught Mozilla's source and figure out all these answers for myself. I'm no C++ guru though, so I'll note that IE's designMode came well before contentEditable. I know it's probably more than too much to hope for, but is there anybody on the Mozilla staff who is willing and able to spend some thought on how that played out (and how it might be able to be similarly accomplished in Moz)?
"It may well be true that IE's stuff is easier to use..."
It isn't so much a question of ease of use as it is a question of functionality. I'm basically trying to fake functionality that cE has in order to make the Midas implementation seem to work as well. I'm bending the DOM over backwards to make it happen, but that can only go so far.
"... I really don't care for either set of functionality, I'm just describing the Mozilla implementation, with no comments as to quality (again, because I do not care, hence have not used it). ;)"
Again, I'm not happy to hear it, but I can understand it. In this particular case, though, you (not you personally necessarily, but the Mozilla organization) are basically a tool maker (a position I am not unfamiliar with in the non-virtual world). At what point do the desires of the people using your tools override your unwillingness to provide the features they want? And more to the point, how do you expect to accomplish the stated goal of getting people to develop applications with your platform when you are unwilling to provide the features they tell you they need to do so?
#10 this is why the moz *suite* still is my favorite
Saturday March 15th, 2003 11:29 AM
i use phoenix sometimes, but the full mozilla suite still offers more than any of the stripped down browsers i've used (phoenix/konqueror/safari/camino/ie/kmeleon)
#9 Standards for editing?
Saturday March 15th, 2003 10:22 AM
While this is very cool, I can't help but wonder why site creators need to target two different API in order to get at this functionality. Isn't it time this sort of thing got standardized?
Note that I'm not complaining about Mozilla's (or IE's) implementation, I'm just saying that now would be a good time to put this stuff in a standard.
#14 Re: Standards for editing?
Sunday March 16th, 2003 6:57 PM
Actually, Midas tries to be API-compatible with IE's API as much as possible...
#11 What the heck is Midas?
Saturday March 15th, 2003 1:48 PM
I must admit to being rather ignorant about all this. Can somebody explain to me what this Midas thing actually means? What is its purpose? What is it useful for? What is the practical point of it? What's the difference between Midas and the email editor I get with Mozilla? The Midas web page doesn't say much; it seems to assume that people understand it. Thanks.
#13 Re: What the heck is Midas?
Saturday March 15th, 2003 7:53 PM
Did you try the demo?
It allows people to create html in a html. It's useful for html web mail and probably web logs.