New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Was there a reason a dom (html) wasn't used? #129
Comments
Never mind. I just found the terminal editor |
An xml-based language has been made for blessed rendering: https://github.com/kevinhikaruevans/blessedoo It's not html, but as an advantage, the xml elements are much more consistent with with blessed elements. |
Also, I should answer your question. The DOM wasn't used because blessed has a different rendering behavior than the CSSOM, and the DOM api itself is flawed. The reason HTML, or any markup language, wasn't implemented as a feature is because I really think that belongs in a separate module, like the above project. |
Yes, that is what I was considering doing. It would only make sense to be On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Christopher Jeffrey (JJ) <
|
I'm considering implementing a node module that renders the DOM into blessed. I'm wondering if there is some fundamental reason this hasn't been done before.
This would run in a headless environment using one of several packages that create a DOM. Obviously some tags wouldn't be supported. And CSS layout would need to be filled out. But blessed is so close to a DOM model I think it might not be a ridiculous idea. In the beginning few tags would be supported but that might be immediately useful. The HTML design would probably need to keep Blessed in mind, but hopefully that html would render approximately to the same thing in a real browser.
My motivation is to port some web-based text editor to blessed. I have wanted an editor that had matching behavior to standard editors instead of VIM. Sort of a nano on steroids.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: