25 Jun
2012
25 Jun
'12
3:20 p.m.
On 06/25/2012 12:40 PM, Anca Luca wrote:
On 06/25/2012 11:03 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Another idea I just had is to modify the import/xar install tool to
allow to choose the languages to import. Thus each document will contain
text where it has to contain text (instead of msg.get) and users can
choose on import which languages they want to import, depending on their
wikis.
Anca
On Jun 25, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Anca Luca wrote:
This is a technical argument. If 80% of the people in 80% of the cases
don't need / care about formatting titles (putting bold, italic, wiki
macros, links, images and other stuff in the titles) then we should
not put it only because it's possible (and yes, sure, consistent with
the implementation!). 80% (*) of the people will want to set a text
and will see this whole sofisticated thing with links, images, macros
which will generate a WTF and a feeling of overdone.
(*) I might be wrong on the numbers, my feeling is that 80% expect
simple text for the title, but we can research, if you want.
On 06/25/2012 09:24 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
I really think we need wysiwyg, same as for content because it's wiki
syntax. 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
it's interesting if we have an i18n macro...
for the rest of the
formatting I'm not sure... I don't know if formatting in titles is
used that often
* Make the title field a textarea so that we can
have more than 1 line
big +1, not for the lines, but for the size (255 becomes
quickly too
small)
* 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
more or less, I think we should keep it simple for the
titles: no
wysiwyg editor, no textarea, just as it was until now, except that
longer. Could you explain your rationale for not having
wiki syntax in the
title field?
? have I ever said that?
We can have it, but we should not show it because people don't use it
and can create confusion. Now, the problem if we don't show it is that
people will put ** and other wiki syntax which will get interpreted
and they won't understand why.
Also not having wysiwyg will not remove the WTF effect we currently
have, see http://markmail.org/thread/jwbbz4ypjqcpwral
We could have another solution for that besides a fully fledged
wysiwyg. Note that I am only against about a fully fledged wysiwyg. If
we find some other visual solution (e.g. as Jerome suggested) I have
nothing against, I'm just saying that title should stay simple and the
wysiwyg is not simple (if only for the fact that it has 2 rows of
buttons!).
For translations though, if a wiki is put in multilanguage mode and
you make a translation of the document, you can translate the title,
IIRC. So aren't only the application developers concerned about the
translations of the titles? (because they script the pages and they
don't want to make 3 translations only to provide the title in a
different language). Because if it's the case, it's also the situation
for the velocity titles, so there is no need to show these "features"
to regular users, we just need to make a better (easier to customize)
default xar. Maybe distribute language by language instead of all in
one pack?
Actually, this is another interesting question: do users actually use
translations for document titles, or the pb is only when they want to
customize the default xar?
Thanks,
Anca
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
* Stop
trying to extract title content from the doc content
* Have a backward compat param to still support the old mode, but
have it off by default in 4.2/4.3
This is interesting too, but I don't have a
strong opinion, although
not extracting titles anymore would be wonderful :) .
<side>
* Introduce a {{i18n}} macro (or {{translate}}, or …)
</side>
+1
I think we should also have a discussion about the purpose of the
title (now that we can put anything in document name) and how titles
should be used by default by the platform, but I need to clear the
ideas a bit in my head before starting it.
Thanks,
Anca
> Advantages:
> * Same as the content field - More consistency
> * More power since we use wiki syntax and we can use any script
> language
> * 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