From 1356f2afc324392944bcb8548301161cc69664c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Marc Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 03:32:39 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Fix a teeny tiny typo (#4875) --- docs/Introduction.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/docs/Introduction.md b/docs/Introduction.md index 09d270a97..7ddad6514 100644 --- a/docs/Introduction.md +++ b/docs/Introduction.md @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Before creating Slate, I tried a lot of the other rich text libraries out there - **Transforming the documents programmatically was very convoluted.** Writing as a user may have worked, but making programmatic changes, which is critical for building advanced behaviors, was needlessly complex. - **Serializing to HTML, Markdown, etc. seemed like an afterthought.** Simple things like transforming a document to HTML or Markdown involved writing lots of boilerplate code, for what seemed like very common use cases. - **Re-inventing the view layer seemed inefficient and limiting.** Most editors rolled their own views, instead of using existing technologies like React, so you had to learn a whole new system with new "gotchas". -- **Collaborative editing wasn't designed for in advance.** Often the editor's internal representation of data made it impossible to use to for a realtime, collaborative editing use case without basically rewriting the editor. +- **Collaborative editing wasn't designed for in advance.** Often the editor's internal representation of data made it impossible to use for a realtime, collaborative editing use case without basically rewriting the editor. - **The repositories were monolithic, not small and reusable.** The code bases for many of the editors often didn't expose the internal tooling that could have been re-used by developers, leading to having to reinvent the wheel. - **Building complex, nested documents was impossible.** Many editors were designed around simplistic "flat" documents, making things like tables, embeds and captions difficult to reason about and sometimes impossible.