Can't we make NL be removed only before
velocity directives:
(\n\s+)#if
(\n\s+)#foreach
(\n\s+)#set
(\n\s+)#else
(\n\s+)#elseif
This would sound much better to me
Note that velocity also has its own newline removal rules, which we
can't control. This means that even if we want it, we can't
introduce a
newline here:
Start the line #set($x = 'x')
... and this is on the same line
Ludovic
Vincent Massol a écrit :
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:01 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>
>
>
>> 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 problem is that this is scripting and some construct take
> several
> lines for ex and you don't want to put everything on the same line
> when you code so we definitely not want to display what is typed.
>
> -Vincent
>
>
>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>