On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 13:38 -0500, Joe Wicentowski wrote:
> Hi Louis,
> Great question. I look forward to hearing what people suggest.
> > eXide looks great for XQuery editing but seems to offer less than
> > CodeMirror when it comes to XML.
> I'd dispute that eXide isn't good for editing XML.
Well, we have no dispute then since I do not hold that eXide is not good
for editing XML, just that it seems to offer less than CodeMirror when
it comes to XML editing.
> It's quite
> serviceable. I agree that eXide lacks #4 and #5 in your list, but
> could you elaborate what CodeMirror offers that eXide lacks?
The presence of #4 in CodeMirror is significant. CodeMirror already has
an infrastructure for completion. I've looked at it quickly. It would
need some updating to work for me but at least it is there. I'm
reluctant to try adding such infrastructure to an editor that does not
already have it. Not that it is impossible but I'm trying to save work
on my part. And I have enough experience to know that going into some
software with the idea "oh, I'll just add this small functionality"
sometimes ends up being a major enterprise because the new functionality
cuts across a whole slew of other things the software already does. I've
actually considered a modification to Serna Free a while back and ended
up not doing it because I was convinced that it would require me getting
really deep into the core of the editor and making changes across the
board. It sure did not help that when I asked a question on the support
forum for Serna Free, no one answered.
> Also, in your list of requirements you might want to specify what size
> range of XML file you want to be able to edit in the browser.
Yes, good point. On the basis of the samples I'm looking at (which are
complete documents), 10-100K. This includes some safety margin.