25 Jun
2012
25 Jun
'12
11:10 a.m.
On Jun 25, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Eduard Moraru wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Consistency *is* simplicity:
* No new concept to learn for users (same tools, same concept to edit title and content)
* Same security model so that's safe. Which isn't the case when you start doing
custom stuff as you suggest
Being a web dev platform, the title really must be programmable too (which it is already
but in a custom way, not using the same code than the content is using hence maintenance
and security issues).
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi guys,
Some time back we started improving title handling, I'd like that we
continue this and I'm proposing some further improvements below:
* Make the title field contain wiki syntax (same as the content field)
instead of just velocity
I am not a big fan of seeing code (of any kind) in titles. IMO, it is bad
practice and we should discourage people from doing it. You have lots of
problems when some application lists the titles of pages with code in their
title or, worse, when the application tries to render those titles. You
have all sorts of security issues and generally bad things when the writer
of that title does not assume that it is going to be rendered outside his
page. I know it is a cool feature, but it is causing too much headache to
handle correctly.
AFAIK, 90% of the times when we need the title to be rendered is because we
need translation keys. We could very well have a filtered wiki syntax, that
allows only calls to the new {{translation}} macro.
An alternative to people that *really* want to generate their title trough
a script is to actually keep the title extraction from the document content
and make them have to generate a <h1> element from the content, not from
the title. This means that they have to leave the actual title empty for
the extraction to be triggered and, if I am not mistaken, applications that
want to list document titles can use
api.Document.gerRenderedTitle(document.syntax.toIdString()) (as they
probably did before) and the first heading (that is either static or
programmatically generated) will be displayed, which sounds good to me.
So I would be +1, considering the comment above (restricted use of macros). * Make the
title field a textarea so that we can have more than 1 line
* Display a textarea of 1 line initially (to preserve space) but enlarge
the textarea visibility by several line on the first Enter keypress in the
field
* Stop trying to extract title content from the doc content
+1
* Have a backward compat param to still support
the old mode, but have it
off by default in 4.2/4.3
<side>
* Introduce a {{i18n}} macro (or {{translate}}, or …)
+1
</side>
Advantages:
* Same as the content field - More consistency
* More power since we use wiki syntax and we can use any script language
More problems for devs, more raised eyebrows from users. :)
> * Removes the WTF symptom when a user edits a page having velocity script
> in the title since they'll see it displayed in WYSIWYG mode with the title
> content evaluated
> * Removes the uncertainty about title extraction (for ex if some macro
> generates headings) but still allow it if it's really needed - Since the
> user will be able to write scripts in the title textarea and those scripts
> can extract stuff from the doc content if they really need it
> * We'll be able to add a l18n macro and thus display the title
> translations nicely in the wysiwyg editor
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent