On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:49 PM, Ludovic Dubost wrote:
I'm a bit afraid by B2.. It sound really weird to me to have all this
some text $nl
$sp next line
#if (...)
this goes on the same line
#something(...) <-- this is also on the same line
#end
$nl $nl
This a new paragraph
Not produce something that would look more like what is typed.
The stripping of leading white spaces sounds ok to me.
But the stripping of new lines sounds bad to me.
We can still use ## for spacing out code if I don't want a line for
it.
This sounds a good solution to me.
B1 means that have to put velocity code on the same line if it goes on
the same line and we cannot align it on following lines (as shown in
the example below).
For ex:
hello #if (...)
...
#end
The following will generate an extra NL:
hello
#if (...)
...
#end
Right now we already have an important issue in velocity code that
make it awkward and generate lots of problems: the fact that code
cannot be spaced out and empty lines generate paragraphs. With B1 we
have the same problems but worse since NL are significants.
I don't really understand the issur with line
breaks with the new line
starting with space.
If you strip leading spaces you need a way to force a leading space
when you have a line break and want to have the second line with
leading spaces.
For splitting code over 2 lines, could we use \ at the
end of the line
to remove the new line ?
\\ forces a line break so it's the opposite. You don't need \\ with B1
since NL are significant.
BTW if you want to see more exampleq, see
http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-3107?focusedCommentId=37707&pag…
Another example is:
hello #if (...)
...
#end #if (...)
...
meaning you have to make sure you put velocity commands one next to
the other or they'll be displayed on the next line.
Thanks
-Vincent
So I'm +1 B1/ -1 on B2/
I'm not sure to understand the implications of A/
Vincent Massol a écrit :
Hi devs,
We need to come to a conclusion for handling New Lines(NL) and white
spaces (WS) in HTML and Velocity Macro.
If you remember from
http://markmail.org/thread/mhqhxnz5twhev5se the
current problem is that we cannot indent scripts since WS and NL are
meaningful.
I'd like to reiterate the proposal that was sent but not enough
people
voted on it (only Thomas did).
A) For the HTML macro, we propose to make the following changes:
- strip NL/WS between elements (elements that don't accept CDATA)
- strip leading/trailing NL/WS for element content before passing
them
to the wiki syntax parser
B) for the Velocity macro we have 2 choices I can think of:
1) strip all leading spaces for all lines (but keep NL)
Note that this means that inside a velocity macro you wouldn't be
able
to have a line break with the new line starting with spaces without
escaping the leading space with ~(space).
Note also that this means we will not be able to add extra new lines
to format the text nicely (since that would add new paragraphs) or
split a single line into several lines for extra readability. This is
the case today with the old syntax and it's a pain not to be able to
aerate the text with empty lines.
Ex:
some text
~ next line #if (...) this goes on the same line #something(...)
#end
This is a new paragraph
In this example notice that we need the velocity #if to be on the
same
line since NL are significant.
2) strip all leading spaces for all lines + remove all NL too.
This means we need to ensure we still have one space remaining
between
"words" (same as HTML).
The user would use something like $nl and $sp to explicitely enter
new
lines and spaces.
The advantage is that you control completely the formatting (no magic
anymore) at the cost of a little extra work (adding the $nl where
required).
Basically this means the same pros/cons as when you work with HTML
where you need to explicitly add <br/> when you want new lines.
Ex:
some text $nl
$sp next line
#if (...)
this goes on the same line
#something(...) <-- this is also on the same line
#end
$nl $nl
This a new paragraph
Note: I've aerated the text by putting extra new lines around the
velocity #if to show that it would work.
3) Same as 1) + strip 1 NL (i.e. line breaks) and only allow "forced"
line breaks with "\\".
The exact algorithm is: if there's 1 NL remove it, if there's more
than 1 leave them.
Ex:
some text\\
~ next line
#if (...)
this goes on the same line
#something(...) <-- this is also on the same line
#end
This a new paragraph
I'm +1 for A)
For B) I think the most flexible is 2) but I'm wondering if it's too
big a change for our users or not. If not 2) then 3).
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Ludovic Dubost
Blog:
http://blog.ludovic.org/
XWiki:
http://www.xwiki.com
Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs