Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Um, I hate Textile.
I’m with Destry. For us control freaks, it’s hadass hand coding or death.
“I love Beethoven. Especially the poems.”
- Ringo Starr
Offline
Re: Um, I hate Textile.
sorry…
s/b “hardass hand coding…” above.
“I love Beethoven. Especially the poems.”
- Ringo Starr
Offline
#15 2005-04-29 09:16:26
- davidm
- Member
- From: Paris, France
- Registered: 2004-04-27
- Posts: 719
Re: Um, I hate Textile.
marios wrote:The basic issue for me is still ,how TP can be deployed as a full fledged CMS tool from the your clients point of you,that means that you will allways have a range of different users,authors,publishers. from the MS Office spoiled (There are many who wouldn’t be able to manage textile)to the more experienced. So you have to do something about it and give them some choices(And the ability to swich things on and off from the admin level) I think that micampe’s Ideas probably one way to go
Yeah I pretty much agree with that, even if I have experienced the poor html output of most WYSIWYG editor and it makes my head ache to see it brake validation… That’s why I proposed the whole concept of textile javascript shorcuts (aka quicktags), that gave birth to two plugins, hak_textile_tags and upm_quicktags
There is no perfect solution… I still have to test Micampe’s plugin though…
As for Textile, isn’t there a 2.0 version ?
True this p wrapping is annoying… I wonder why there’s no markdown plugin, too, rather than a hack.
Last edited by davidm (2005-11-01 18:14:58)
.: Retired :.
Offline
Re: Um, I hate Textile.
I really wish we would get Textile 2.0 a lot of the elements in Textism’s Textile example don’t currently work. I was trying desperately to align an image or apply a class to it the other day and I just had to end up using XHTML anyway.
I would also love to see Textile be able to use Image or article IDs as links nstead of just URLs.
Shoving is the answer – pusher robot
Offline
#17 2005-04-29 13:44:23
- davidm
- Member
- From: Paris, France
- Registered: 2004-04-27
- Posts: 719
Re: Um, I hate Textile.
Ah, so there is a 2.0 ! I had come across this in EE or other CMS using 2.0 (isn’t that a real irony ?)
Same here, I was unable to align image with the > or <
I frequently have to resort to XHTML in my post, sometimes it bugs me a little… it would have been nice to upgrade this for 1.0. I don’t know if it’s a big work or not, and with all the work these guys are doing, I can’t say anything.
.: Retired :.
Offline
#18 2005-12-21 09:20:12
- marknumberm
- Member
- From: Minneapolis
- Registered: 2005-11-29
- Posts: 46
Re: Um, I hate Textile.
Amen.
Textile is perhaps very slightly easier than html, assuming you know nothing to begin with, but it’s also less flexible.
Why not spend the extra 20 minutes to learn the real code of Web sites?
But, then I guess I can see the point of giving different options to different people.
Last edited by marknumberm (2005-12-21 09:21:07)
Offline
#19 2005-12-22 06:39:46
- Mary
- Sock Enthusiast
- Registered: 2004-06-27
- Posts: 6,236
Re: Um, I hate Textile.
It’s html shorthand, that’s all it was intended for; not everyone who publishes text gives a damn about markup, particularly for blogging (when you want to post quickly).
But, you can turn it off, use just nltobr(), use a wysiwyg or an html tag helper plugin. In the future you’ll be able to use your own custom markup script, more easily (you could now by modifying files, but that’s obviously not ideal). When it will appear I don’t know for sure, but the beginnings of it are evident in the “crockery” branch (svn).
Last edited by Mary (2005-12-22 06:40:13)
Offline
Re: Um, I hate Textile.
With some of the new blogging tools (or old ones still around :P ) you can just use HTML. They have WYSIWYG editors, so just turn off Textile and use HTML.
I might head that way soon… depends on how some of the tools I need to use support Textile.
And for my wife, clicking a button to give results is much easier than putting in tags. Again… its a preference. I think with time, TXP will add in more options for people.
Eric
Offline
#21 2005-12-22 17:47:04
- marknumberm
- Member
- From: Minneapolis
- Registered: 2005-11-29
- Posts: 46
Re: Um, I hate Textile.
Well, since I wrote my first comment on this I’ve realized I should give things more of a chance before opening my big mouth.
HTML tags have become second nature to me, but Textile *is* easier for lots of _on the fly_ type things, and I’ve grown especially fond of the easy way of writing <notextile>links;.
I certainly don’t want to take my hands off the keyboard to highlight text and then click a button to generate text effects, but it’s good to know there are plugins out there in case I ever put together a textpattern site for a person with no code experience.
Last edited by marknumberm (2005-12-22 17:48:18)
Offline
Re: Um, I hate Textile.
This is exactly what got me so excited about textile when I started using it with Movable Type. It’s just so quick to do basic taging while typing. I also find it easier to grok the text in a textarea when it’s textile vs html just because there is less visual clutter.
Shoving is the answer – pusher robot
Offline
Re: Um, I hate Textile.
I like Textile. I also like bbcode and other forms of shorthand code, and I am a control freak XHTML hand coder, usually. My clients find Textile easy to get along with.
Offline