The "crutch" as you call it works just fine for final proofing and simple edits followed by cleanups in Sigil's CodeView if needed. And in that role its interface is fine. Therefore, it will never be more integrated with Sigil.
Too many newbies created too much broken html with it and kept complaining about the mess THEY made with it and filing too many "bug" reports to make it worthwhile in any other fashion.
As for using the OPF, if people understood anything about epubs, they would understand that the OPF is exactly the core file of the epub. Without it, the epub is just a bunch of unrelated html.
So "no". This change was for the best and well thought through by the dev team. It had been in the plans for years. You can disagree and argue otherwise but you do not have to deal with the bug reports and craziness BookView produced. So reversing it is not going to happen. Newbies can still visually edit as long as they know enough html to clean up any messes they make in Sigil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by un_pogaz
It always comes down to this:
PageEdit/Sigil has powerful but not intuitive functionality (who would use an XHTML visual editor on an XML file containing no text?).
A problem with the WYSIWYG alternative is that none of them accept ePub as the main format. Possibly as a source file, but it is converted to another format.
And above all: None of them allow to alternate easily between code editing and WYSIWYG.
This was the great strength of Sigil "Book view".
The more I think about it, the more the synergy of PageEdit/Sigil is a bad idea.
The real problem isn't that you wanted to get away from a WYSIWYG editor, it's a choice, but that you're maintaining a weird crutch.
Merge them. Find a way to merge them and cohabitate them in the same software.
I thank you for the voluntary development of Sigil, but really, I find that you're blinded yourself any think posibility because "I don't want to think about it" and that your policy is "walk or die" on YOUR choices.
|