[TYPO3-ect] Official voting for Extension Award 2005

[JoH]

> rtehtmlarea:
>
> ...
>
> d) Joey is complaining of "feature packed" RTE and propagates the
> puristic way. Well, I might see some discrepancy between this
> statement and the newsreader he using to access this list. We need to
> make it easy for the editor. He should be able to work as intuitive
> as possible, without a lot of learning for different content elements.

Well - you should see the statement from another point of view.
"Puristic" doesn't mean that I refuse to use Microsoft products.
In fact I have always been a Windoze user and this will probably never
change. Why should I use something else than OE (with quote fix) to access
the newsgroups then?
But I don't think that "Content Management" has something to do with "Just
paste it all from Office into your RTE and you're done".
Have you ever tried to really "manage" the content when _all_ paragraphs,
images and headlines are handled using only _one_ text element with RTE
enabled?
How do you setup different enable fields for different paragraphs?
How will you use starttime, endtime, access, hide, delete/undelete?
How will you move different sections up or down or even to another page?
This is why you need content elements and this is why I don't think TYPO3
needs an RTE with more than text formatting and link tags. (Or did I
misunderstand the term Rich TEXT Editor?)

> Without configuration RTEHtmlArea rather produces rubbisch than
> sourcecode. But it is possible to configure it in a way that you can
> do pure semantic tagging with it, so that the result is very clean,
> accessible and stylable be CSS.

This is another reason why I couldn't give it more than 1 point. (even
though I wanted to)
Maybe the developers put a lot of efforts in it and it took a really long
time to develop it.
The question is: Why did they miss the major goal, which should have been
"improving the overall quality of the RTE output and make it work in every
browser" instead of "delivering an RTE that works in every browser but
produces the same rubbish code if you don't tweak it manually"?

And this is where the problem arises: If you have to distribute a must of 5
points between 3 entries it will give the following options.

3 2 0
3 1 1
2 2 1

If you want to assign 2 points to a candidate you have to either drop
another one to 0 points which will make it look worse than it is or make it
equal which might be simply not true.
In both cases it didn't fit the scenario I would have prefered:

3 CSI
2 RTE
1 CHC

3 DAM
2 TIMTAB
1 TIMTAW

So if there is a "bug" in the rules as Michelle mentioned in another
posting, it is the "5 point must for all but 3 max for each" system.
In fact it should be a "1 point must but 3 max for each" system.
Could we revise that during the election or should we postpone that to the
next year?

Joey

-- 
Wenn man keine Ahnung hat: Einfach mal Fresse halten!
(If you have no clues: simply shut your knob sometimes!)
Dieter Nuhr, German comedian
http://www.cybercraft.de