11 Dec
2014
11 Dec
'14
4:03 p.m.
So the field would be called "Content Type" with these 2 following options:
"CSS", "LESS".
I have nothing against this. Do everyone agree?
2014-12-11 15:54 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>om>:
Guillaume is about to introduce a way to indicate what
is the content, I
would suggest to name this field in something more generic than pre
processor (for example content type) and we can add more stuff to that list
later the default staying none. Vincent can add wiki to that list if he
really wants it would stay an optional type and everyone is happy IMO.
Le 11 déc. 2014 15:06, "vincent(a)massol.net" <vincent(a)massol.net> a écrit
:
need
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
On 11 Dec 2014 at 14:49:18, vincent(a)massol.net (vincent(a)massol.net
(mailto:
vincent(a)massol.net)) wrote:
object.
On 11 Dec 2014 at 14:40:31, vincent(a)massol.net (vincent(a)massol.net
(mailto:vincent@massol.net)) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 Dec 2014 at 14:03:59, Marius Dumitru Florea (
mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com))
wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:54 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11 Dec 2014 at 12:46:48, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) (
valicac@gmail.com(mailto:valicac@gmail.com)) wrote:
> > >
> > >> Related to Vincent's comment:
> > >> As a designer I would want to be able to write CSS as simple as
possible.
> > > >
> > > > Then just write CSS directly :)
> > > >
> > > >> Already I need to know that I need to add my CSS to a SSX I
CSS/LESS
> > >> wouldn't want to know that
if I need to write LESS I need to use
whatever
> > >> other object or macro.
> > >
> > > That’s not CSS, that’s LESS.
> > >
> > >> Also I want a simple solution where the existing CSS written to
be easily
> > >> adaptable. If I need to use
some FlamingoThemes variables,
already is
> > >> complicated that I need to
know that I need less.
> > >> So I'm not a fan of having the css in wiki syntax. I don't
want
to write
> > >> css with ruby, python or
whatever. I was in need of velocity
because back
> > >> then less didn't existed
(so we didn't had variables, etc.)
> > >> Also I assume css and less would need different macros and maybe
they would
> > >> need to be nested and mixed
together, which is again more of a
xwiki style,
> > >> but definitely not a
'web' style.
> > >
> > > What’s the need for a CSS macro?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Vincent
> > >
> >
> > I don't want to write {{less}} or {{css}} every time I do some
> > styling.
>
> My idea would be to have a default source syntax to be plaintext +
macro
(i.e. plaintext but also support to specify macros, possibly using
the same syntax as for XWiki Syntax 2.x).
>
> > I really don't think we need wiki syntax (scripting macros
> > precisely) when writing style sheets.
>
> Yes I didn’t express myself properly. I meant a Rendering Syntax (not
Wiki
Syntax).
> >
> > > No one has ever asked for this.
> > > So I'm -1. As Caty said, users should be able to paste their > > > code without doing any useless
wrapping.
> >
> > It’s very simple it boils down to only 2 possibilites:
> >
> > 1) Either you have a select box that you need to click to explain
what
your content is about
> > 2) or you have a context field only and you decide what it contains
by
using some type of annotations (and in my first
proposal the default was
CSS since this is what a SSX object is about, so for CSS you don’t need
to
specify anything).
is
>
> Now 1) initially seems to be fine with “Syntax” combo with various
options:
“CSS”, “LESS”, “CSS+Velocity”, etc. The only problem is that
you’ll never be able to specify all the syntax combination that exist.
>
> 2) makes it even more easy than now to write pure CSS (since it
removes the
velocity checkbox and you paste CSS directly) but also allows
extending with other more exotic features such as LESS, SAAS, scripting,
include (so that the content is defined on some other pages and can be
reused between SSX)
>
> > It's a big difference between
> > the content of a wiki page and the style sheet object. I want to be
> > able to use wiki syntax in the content of the wiki page because it
> > doesn't have any specific purpose.
>
> There’s no difference at all. Whenever you have a text area you need
to put
content in it that’s of a given syntax, whatever the syntax! This exactly the same for a wiki page.
any
BTW on a different but related topic we will need in the future to have
some
metadata to let the user specify what syntax he’s using when filling
the context of a text area. The need is double:
- let the user decide the syntax of the content
he’s entering
- let the developer of the xproperty decide what syntaxes are supported
(to limit
the list of proposed syntaxes to the user)
Note: There’s a problem with my logic: the XDOM is not meant to be a
generic representation of any syntax… Its done for textual content only
(heading, section, paragraphs, words, etc) so it’s not well adapted to kind of syntax… So it works for textarea supposed
to represent text
only...
Thanks
-Vincent
need).
Thanks
-Vincent
> > The content can be used to generate
> > HTML, JSON, XML, whatever, depending on the application.
>
> A wiki page generates content in XHTML. A SSX text area generates
“CSS”
syntax as output (which can be assimilated as plaintext for our > >
> > > On the other
> > > hand the style sheet extension object has a very specific purpose.
It
> > > should be very easy and really
straightforward to use it (e.g.
"don't
> >
make me think”).
>
> I don’t see why this would be a privilege of a SSX. This should be
true for
any part of xwiki, be it for writing the content of a page or
anything else.
>
> And BTW having 2 checkboxes to choose from all the time (one for
parsing and
one for the CSS preprocessor to use) even when you all you is simple CSS isn’t simplicity for me… My
solution is actually simpler
than
what we currently have and simpler than GD’s
proposal when the need is to
use CSS.
(not
>
> > > PS: Saying that you’ll never need scripting is just wishful
thinking IMO… I can already find tons of use cases where you’d need it even counting the many places we use velocity in
our SSX)...
you
> >
> > From my experience we don't use scripting that much in SSX objects.
> > And when we do, it really boils down to:
> >
> > (1) color theme variables, which will be replaced by LESS variables
> > (2) getting the URL of some internal resource (getSkinFile /
> > getAttachmentURL). For this, if we want to get rid of scripting we
can
> > introduce a special syntax for the
url('xyz') CSS value:
> >
> > background-image: url("skin://icons/xwiki/create-link.png");
> > background-image: url("attach://myOwnIcon.png”);
>
> You’ll always have edge case needs where having some script will help
you.
> >
> > BTW it’s true that LESS can replace velocity to some degree (since can set some variables and reuse them for
example) but it’s quite
primitive
compared to Velocity and all our java API behind
and it’s also a lot lot
less performant. LESS is a pain on performance and the more we can avoid
it
the better. Also we’re not guaranteed that LESS
will be here to stay…
now:
>
> > In any case, +1 for Guillaume's proposal (adding a new property to
the
> > SSX object).
>
> So to sum up I’m less against having a “Syntax/Content Type” combo
specifying
what syntax the Code property will contain with 2 values for > > - CSS
> > - LESS
> >
> > This removes the need for a {{less}} macro (which could potentially
be
useful if you want to write a
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs