3 Jun
2009
3 Jun
'09
9:29 p.m.
Hi,
I think we need to add a plain text parser & a "plain/1.0" syntax id.
Here's a use case: you want to add a groovy class in a wiki page (and
you don't want it to be rendered as wiki syntax of course).
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
3 Jun
3 Jun
10:08 p.m.
Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
I think we need to add a plain text parser & a "plain/1.0" syntax id.
Here's a use case: you want to add a groovy class in a wiki page (and
you don't want it to be rendered as wiki syntax of course).
WDYT?
+1
What about a plain text renderer?
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
10:14 p.m.
On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Vincent Massol wrote:
we have it already :)
-Vincent
Hi,
I think we need to add a plain text parser & a "plain/1.0" syntax id.
Here's a use case: you want to add a groovy class in a wiki page (and
you don't want it to be rendered as wiki syntax of course).
WDYT?
+1
What about a plain text renderer? 
10:35 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 21:29, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi,
I think we need to add a plain text parser & a "plain/1.0" syntax id.
Here's a use case: you want to add a groovy class in a wiki page (and
you don't want it to be rendered as wiki syntax of course).
WDYT?
+1 we are already using a pseudo crappy plain text parser method, that
would clean this.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
4 Jun
4 Jun
12:49 p.m.
finally there will be a plain/1.0 syntax :)
This means, json will use it?
Pascal
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi,
I think we need to add a plain text parser & a "plain/1.0" syntax id.
Here's a use case: you want to add a groovy class in a wiki page (and
you don't want it to be rendered as wiki syntax of course).
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
12:55 p.m.
On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Pascal Voitot wrote:
finally there will be a plain/1.0 syntax :)
This means, json will use it?
Note that the plain text renderer is already implemented (but not
linked to a URL action yet).
This is about a plain text *parser*
Thanks
-Vincent
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we need to add a plain text parser & a "plain/1.0" syntax id.
>
> Here's a use case: you want to add a groovy class in a wiki page (and
> you don't want it to be rendered as wiki syntax of course).
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
1:02 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Pascal Voitot wrote:
Yes I see but it is a bit symmetric... parser/renderer...
anyway, a plain text approach would be really useful...
finally there will be a plain/1.0 syntax :)
This means, json will use it?
Note that the plain text renderer is already implemented (but not
linked to a URL action yet).
This is about a plain text *parser*
Thanks
-Vincent
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we need to add a plain text parser & a "plain/1.0" syntax id.
>
> Here's a use case: you want to add a groovy class in a wiki page (and
> you don't want it to be rendered as wiki syntax of course).
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
7:26 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi,
I think we need to add a plain text parser & a "plain/1.0" syntax id.
Here's a use case: you want to add a groovy class in a wiki page (and
you don't want it to be rendered as wiki syntax of course).
Seems like this is an uneccessary complication, and a design compromise made
from expendiency...it also serves to further complicate the document model.
I think scripting needs to be removed entirely from the document so that it
remains purely declative and not procedural. Procedural content should be
packaged and treated differently. I therefore suggest a different approach,
based on existing precedent:
What about following the precedent of the
$xwiki.jsx.use("$doc.fullName") construct. Have other language-specific
"extensions" objects attached to the document as objects, and give options
in the "XWiki.GroovyExtension" instance (analogous to
XWiki.JavaScriptExtension class) for:
(1) velocity parsing
(2) caching
Stylistically, I don't like the practice of dropping all manner of random
procedural <script> in the middle of a declarative Wiki or HTML document
(though in some cases it's necessary to add some javascript post-processing
at the end of a document for JS that needs access to the DOM).
IMHO, the model of using JSX and SSX to inject JavaScript and CSS into a
document seems cleaner, and should be extended to using other scripting
languages in Xwiki.
Niels
http://nielsmayer.com
5680
days inactive
5681
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Niels Mayer -
Pascal Voitot -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol