10 Sep
2018
10 Sep
'18
3:07 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
Sure but as I said you can differentiate using types too and we need
content types for other use cases so it's a good occasion. Also when
you use the type you can differentiate between wiki content and HTML
content and support inline editing of HTML macro in the same system
for example.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli
<simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
getter/setters to
the Macro descriptor, to tell that the macro content
contains wiki markup and that it should be editable in the WYSIWYG editor?
On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition with
WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
>
> Cool :) We've been waiting for a long time about this feature! See
below.
>
>> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a content
or a
parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
>> The second step is to allow the CKEditor
to detect where the content
and/or parameters should be edited.
>> Let's take the exampe of a simple
macro without any parameter, which
currently produces this code:
>>
>> <div class="box infomessage">
>> <div class="title">
>> <span class="icon info"></span>
>> some title
>> </div>
>> Some content
>> </div>
>>
>> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a
specific class around the content to tell the editor it should only allow
editing this content, e.g.:
>
> <div class="box infomessage">
> <div class="title">
> <span class="icon info"></span>
> some title
> </div>
> <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
> </div>
By “users”, I guess you mean macro developers?
Here yes it's the macro developer. I'll try to be more specific in my
answers.
>
> So if I understand you well, you’re not planning to add a
Actually we're planning to add the getter/setter **and** the specific
markup for the editor. The getter/setter (which I called the flag
above), is here to specify that the macro will contain inline editable
content in WYSIWYG. The markup will specify *where* exactly is this
content, and what shouldn't be changed.
About that "flag", you seems to plan a boolean but I feel something
more generic that we want to introduce since a long time would be
better: make the content descriptor return a type like parameters
descriptors do. The kind of inline editing you have in mind right now
would then be associated to the type List<Block> for example (or
CompositeBlock or some another type if we want to differentiate
between wiki content modified by the macro and wiki content not
modified by the macro
We need this differentiation.
> ). The other types would be used in other use
> cases (syntax coloring for scripts, json editor, etc.). The idea of
> using Java type is to be consistent with parameters and reuse existing
> the displayers in the macro modal window for example but it can cover
> this need too.
>
> >
> > I guess that if the flag is set and the markup is not present, then the
> > entire content is considered as editable.
> >
> > >
> > > Is that because you want to be finer-grained and have macro content
> which can have parts editable with the WYSIWYG while having other parts of
> the content not editable (for example)?
> >
> > It's exactly why yes. On my example, the macro user won't be able to
> > change the content of the title.
> >
> > >
> > > Technically Macros don’t generate HTML, only XDOM. So in order to make
> it easier for java macro developers, I’d suggest to introduce some new
> wrapping Block to indicate this information. We might need something
> similar for wiki macros too, to make it more reusable and typed.
> >
> > I'd need to look more on wrapping block but after a quick overlook it
> > seems to make sense indeed.
> >
> > >
> > >> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute and
> to ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as for
> a parameter named foo:
> > >>
> > >> <span class="editable-content"
data-parameter="foo">my foo parameter
> value</span>
> > >
> > > What’s your idea for editing parameters requiring WYSIWYG? How do you
> present them in the UI? Do you have any mockup?
> >
> > I don't have any mockup right now. FTM I see it like this:
> > - when creating the macro, the current text input are improved with
> > the CKEditor for the editable content/parameters
> > - when editing the macro, you stay in the main editor UI, but the
> > content is now editable instead of opening back the macro UI
> >
> > >
> > >> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases
such
> as:
> > >> <span class="editable-content">Some content with
<span
> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
> parameter</span></span>
> > >>
> > >> So:
> > >> 1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named
"editable-content"
> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
> > >
> > > Small details, there’s already the “contenteditable” notion that
> exists (see https://developer.mozilla.org/fr/docs/Web/HTML/Attributs_
> universels/contenteditable) so “editable-content” is quite close. Maybe
> we should have something more xwiki-specific? or more WYSIWYG-specific?
> Like “editable-wysiwyg” or “wysiwyg-editable”.
> >
> > I'm open to suggestion on this one. "wysiwyg-editable" could be
nice.
> > >
> > > My main comment is what I put above: how do we make it easy for macro
> developers to specify this information.
> > >
> > >> 2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
> editing of parameters?
> > >
> > > Before answering that part, I would need to understand what’s the
> proposal in term of UI.
> > >
> > > Note that the main use case is for content but it’s nice if you can
> also support parameters. Now, accepting markup in parameters is not really
> a great use case IMO and is usually a design issue so I’m not sure we
> should spend that much time in supporting that. WDYT?
> >
> > We just discuss about macro parameters with Ludovic and apparently they
> > cannot support line returns, so we might have to use a custom editor for
> > those.
> >
> > >
> > > The only macro parameter I know ATM that supports markup is the
> “title” param of the {{box}} macro and I think it’s badly designed. Note:
> if you check the recent {{figure}} macro, I implemented this need by having
> a {{figureCaption}} nested macro.
> > >
> > > BTW this raises a question, will you support WYSIWYG editing of nested
> macros?
> >
> > Not for the moment.
> >
> > Simon
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Vincent
> > >
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Simon
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Simon Urli
> > Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> > simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
> > More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
>
--
Thomas Mortagne