Hi devs, I have a very bad feeling with proposal 3, since it split the identifier, which makes its main part to loose its meaning when taken alone. So you cannot comunicate the whole information easily on different channels (think about copy/pasting such reference ?). This is also really verbose, sometime it looks odd, and I found it to be complex from a user view point. Moreover, it could not be easily applied in other situation than links, while ressource identification is not limited to links (think about a macro arguments ?, see MotionComposer macro that imitate image: for an example). I know it is hard, but I am currently -1 for this proposal. If we look at large, what we really need and intend to achieve is to have an extensible syntax to identify ressources in XWiki. There is obviously a ready made standardized syntax for such purpose: URN. Proposal 1 is really near that specification (but too verbose for URL), but I agree with Thomas that users will complains to be forced to use doc: everywhere. This is precisely why I made proposal 2, which will fully avoid that constrains for user of single wikis (a lot of our user since XE was our mostly downloaded distribution until now). So my vote are (sorry Vincent, but your request to have a truly single vote is far too restrictive for this matter) +1 to really conform with a URN syntax as much as possible (remove the useless verbosity for URL). Proposal 1: +0 Proposal 2: +1 Proposal 3: -1 Thanks, On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: images vote ideas. -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: (think sometime macro example). a really Thomas for downloaded vote Are you referring to URI? because URN and URL are complementary. An URL is not a URN.

+1 for proposal 2, but as Thomas, I'm not fully decided. Thanks, Marius wrote: wrote: images with (I've vote ideas. force ]] _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi Denis, On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: (think sometime macro example). a really Thomas for downloaded vote I also prefer URIs but my problem with solution 2 is having to prefix with "doc:" for links to subwikis. This is pretty common.

I had proposed another solution in the other thread with a different notation for proper URI notations. The idea was to use the shortcut notation when you wanted to use document references for simplicity reasons and use the proper syntax when you use proper URIs. Maybe that solution wasn't that bad. I'm putting it again here (with a difference using [[[…]]] instead of >>> as I had said since that doesn't work for images): * Shortcut notation for doc refs: [[label>>docref]] * General notations for URIs: [[[label>>type:reference]]] * Shortcut notation for images: [[image:docref]] * General notation for URIs in images: [[[image:type:reference]]] It looks clunky at first but it isn't really since it represents what we want: * shortcut notation for doc URIs * full notation for any URI WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent wrote: wrote: images with vote ideas. ]] _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi Denis, On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: wrote: identifier, have obviously with and I Yes but we don't type URLs often at all… We navigate by clicking. Imagine that every time you click on a link you had to instead type it, it would become quickly an issue…

In any case I think the main issue now is that 1) we have already offered a simpler way for users to type references to docs and 2) other wikis also propose this simpler way. Because of these 2 points, I'm not sure we can ever go back to making it harder to type references to docs...

feature. most reasons You're not very logical here :) You said you wanted URIs and solution 4 is about URIs while solution 3 isn't about URIs so you should prefer solution 4 over solution 3 normally :)

btw :)), then I believe solution 4 is currently the best one.

Thanks -Vincent break (I've force http://xwiki.org users [[label>>wiki:space.page||type="doc"]] _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On May 1, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: I never ever type a URL! The only thing I do is copy paste URLs into documents… Bad argument because our goal is to move users to the latest syntax. The idea is that the latest syntax is better so, no, we cannot say to users that they should stay on the old syntax because it's nicer to type link refs… :) I think so, especially since we're making XEM the default (first step was virtual=1 by default, second step is to be able to create wikis by default). IMO this fails the concept of the wiki syntax which is to be extra simple and quick to use. So yes auto completion on linking/images is a good thing we need in the future but if we could also have a simple syntax at least for doc ref it would be good. - Solution 1 is nice because it's simple and coherent. But harder to write doc refs - Solution 2 is slightly less nice because not coherent. Simple to write doc refs but not cross wikis. - Solution 3 is less nice because it drops the concept of URIs which could prove useful in the future for other things in XWiki - Solution 4: is less nice than 1 because less coherent but at the same level of coherency as solution 2 and 3 and at the same time it doesn't have the drawback of solution 2. It's very close to solution 3 but keeping the concept of URIs. They don't have this concept. But we need to be careful, we cannot allow to be powerful and complex. We need to be powerful and simple. So making the main use case hard just for supporting other use cases that are used 5% of the time is not a good solution IMO. It does! It's like solution 1 actually. Again here it is (and again we could think of another syntax if we want, we don't have to use [[[…]]], we could use for example

[[[label>>type:reference]]] Now just because we want to make it easy to type doc ref we also allow a **shortcut** (not the canonical way!): [[label>>docref]] Yes but only solution 1 provides this but at a big cost which I currently consider too large. Of course since this is an important decision I'd like to know what others think too. Thanks -Vincent >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>>> Thanks >>>> -Vincent >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Typos below. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Following this thread http://markmail.org/thread/vw3derowozijqalr it >>>>>> seems clear that we need to introduce a better syntax for links and >>>> images >>>>>> in XWiki Syntax 2.2 (in order to cope with use cases such as >>>>>> http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XRENDERING-290). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The need is to be able to plug new reference type handlers without >>>>>> breaking backward compatibility in XWiki Syntax 2.2 (since right now >>>> with >>>>>> XWiki Syntax 2.0 and 2.1 adding a new type reference handler would >> break >>>>>> backward compatibility). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So here are various proposals to that effect for XWiki Syntax 2.2 >> (I've >>>>>> only kept the interesting proposals from the previous thread). Please >>>> vote >>>>>> for the one you prefer or add new solutions if you have other better >>>> ideas. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Proposal 1 >>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Force XWiki Syntax 2.2 to *ALWAYS* use the full form when creating a >>>>>> link or image, i.e. all links would need to be written: >>>>>> [[label>>type:reference]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Examples: >>>>>>> * [[label>>doc:space.page]] >>>>>>> * [[label>>doc:wiki:space.page]] >>>>>>> * [[label>>path:/some/path]] >>>>>>> * [[label>>url:http://xwiki.org]] >>>>>>> * [[label>>user:evalica]] >>>>>>> * [[image:doc:wiki:space.page@image.png]] >>>>>>> * [[image:icon:someicon.png]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CONS: >>>>>>> * Harder to write links to documents which is the main use case >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Proposal 2 >>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Same as with XWiki Syntax 2.1 but for links or images to subwikis >> force >>>>>> the user to use the "doc:" notation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Examples: >>>>>>> * [[label>>space.page]] or [[label>>doc:space.page]] >>>>>>> * [[label>>doc:wiki:space.page]] >>>>>>> * [[label>>>path:/some/path]] >>>>>> >>>>>> Should be [[label>>path:/some/path]] >>>>>> >>>>>>> * [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>>url:http://xwiki.org]] >>>>>> >>>>>> Should be [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>url: >> http://xwiki.org >>>> ]] >>>>>> >>>>>>> * [[label>>user:evalica]] >>>>>>> * [[image:doc:wiki:space.page@image.png]] >>>>>>> * [[image:icon:someicon.png]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PRO: >>>>>>> * Still easy to reference docs and images in the current wiki >>>>>>> * Close to current XWiki Syntax 2.1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CONS: >>>>>>> * Harder to write links to documents in subwikis (for workspaces >> users >>>>>> for example, see example of xwiki.org) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Proposal 3 >>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Always define the type as a link or image parameter, i.e. separate >>>>>> subwiki notation from type. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Examples: >>>>>>> * [[label>>space.page]] or [[label>>space.page||type="doc"]] >>>>>>> * [[label>>wiki:space.page]] or >> [[label>>wiki:space.page||type="doc"]] >>>>>>> * [[label>>>/some/path||type="path"]] >>>>>> >>>>>> Should be [[label>>/some/path||type="path"]] >>>>>> >>>>>>> * [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>>http://xwiki.org >>>>>> ||type="url"]] >>>>>> >>>>>> Should be [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>http://xwiki.org >>>>>> ||type="url"]] >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> -Vincent >>>>>> >>>>>>> * [[label>>evalica||type="user"]] >>>>>>> * [[image:wiki:space.page@image.png]] or >>>>>> [[image:wiki:space.page@image.png||type="doc"]] >>>>>>> * [[image:someicon.png||type="icon"]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PRO: >>>>>>> * Still easy to reference docs >>>>>>> * Clear separation between subwiki and types >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CONS: >>>>>>> * Harder to write typed links >>>>>>> * Harder to write references in non xwiki/2.x syntax that would not >>>>>> support link parameters >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> -Vincent

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: > > On May 1, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: > > > Hi Vincent, > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Denis, > >> > >> On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Denis, > >>>> > >>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi devs, > >>>>> > >>>>> I have a very bad feeling with proposal 3, since it split the > >> identifier, > >>>>> which makes its main part to loose its meaning when taken alone.

> you > >>>>> cannot comunicate the whole information easily on different

> >>>> (think > >>>>> about copy/pasting such reference ?). This is also really verbose, > >>>> sometime > >>>>> it looks odd, and I found it to be complex from a user view point. > >>>>> Moreover, it could not be easily applied in other situation than > links, > >>>>> while ressource identification is not limited to links (think

> >>>> macro > >>>>> arguments ?, see MotionComposer macro that imitate image: for an > >>>> example). > >>>>> I know it is hard, but I am currently -1 for this proposal. > >>>>> > >>>>> If we look at large, what we really need and intend to achieve is

> >> have > >>>>> an extensible syntax to identify ressources in XWiki. There is > >> obviously > >>>> a > >>>>> ready made standardized syntax for such purpose: URN. Proposal 1

> >>>> really > >>>>> near that specification (but too verbose for URL), but I agree

> >>>> Thomas > >>>>> that users will complains to be forced to use doc: everywhere.

> is > >>>>> precisely why I made proposal 2, which will fully avoid that > constrains > >>>> for > >>>>> user of single wikis (a lot of our user since XE was our mostly > >>>> downloaded > >>>>> distribution until now). > >>>>> > >>>>> So my vote are (sorry Vincent, but your request to have a truly > single > >>>> vote > >>>>> is far too restrictive for this matter) > >>>>> +1 to really conform with a URN syntax as much as possible (remove > the > >>>>> useless verbosity for URL). > >>>>> Proposal 1: +0 > >>>>> Proposal 2: +1 > >>>>> Proposal 3: -1 > >>>> > >>>> I also prefer URIs but my problem with solution 2 is having to

> >> with > >>>> "doc:" for links to subwikis. This is pretty common. > >>> > >>> > >>> I do not see why this is so annoying, we type http:// to start URLs, > >> and I > >>> do not feel anyone has ever complains. > >> > >> Yes but we don't type URLs often at all… We navigate by clicking. > Imagine > >> that every time you click on a link you had to instead type it, it

> >> become quickly an issue… > >> > > > > Are we talking about navigating the wiki ? no, we are talking about > editing > > hyperlinked documents, and you need to type the http:// as soon as you > > refer a document outside of your current server. Isn't that

> > linking document in another wiki ? > > I never ever type a URL! The only thing I do is copy paste URLs into > documents… > > >> In any case I think the main issue now is that 1) we have already > offered > >> a simpler way for users to type references to docs and 2) other wikis > also > >> propose this simpler way. Because of these 2 points, I'm not sure we

> >> ever go back to making it harder to type references to docs... > >> > > > > I do not believe 1) is a good argument. First, if users prefer simpler > > syntax for subwiki's links compare to an extensible URI base syntax,

> > may simply continue to use syntax 2.1. > > Bad argument because our goal is to move users to the latest syntax. The > idea is that the latest syntax is better so, no, we cannot say to users > that they should stay on the old syntax because it's nicer to type link > refs… :) > > > Second, are there so much users with > > that preference, that also use multiple wikis with links between them

> > I think so, especially since we're making XEM the default (first step

> virtual=1 by default, second step is to be able to create wikis by

While we do so, we do not deploy anything to create more than one wiki in our default flavor. And anyway, you said earlier that, mainly, solution 1) is bad because we have already provided a simpler solution. But using solution 2), it became only true for user of multiple wikis, that do link between those wikis, and that write those links by hand. I continue to think this is not the majority of our user currently. > > Finally, we also provide other means to create documents then writing > them > > using the xwiki syntax. We could also think about improving the

> > insert link/image more easily. > > IMO this fails the concept of the wiki syntax which is to be extra

> and quick to use. So yes auto completion on linking/images is a good

Well, using a doc: prefix for document reference is IMO far simpler than

remember that your reference are interpreted differently depending on an additional [] or any other tricky syntax. > > > So is the limitation of solution 2, imposed by the need for

> so > > blocker, as you seems to believe ? > > - Solution 1 is nice because it's simple and coherent. But harder to

> doc refs > - Solution 2 is slightly less nice because not coherent. Simple to write > doc refs but not cross wikis. > - Solution 3 is less nice because it drops the concept of URIs which

> prove useful in the future for other things in XWiki > - Solution 4: is less nice than 1 because less coherent but at the same > level of coherency as solution 2 and 3 and at the same time it doesn't

> the drawback of solution 2. It's very close to solution 3 but keeping

IMO, you bias your conclusion by considering the multiwiki situation, with cross-linking as the default most used configuration. > > > Regarding point 2), I have not enough knowledge of other wikis, but it > > could be interesting to elaborate and see how and which of those other > > wikis really support easy interwiki links in there syntax, while > providing > > at the same time support to different kind of ressources. I may be

> > but I do not believe there will be numerous competitor with those > criteria. > > They don't have this concept. But we need to be careful, we cannot allow > to be powerful and complex. We need to be powerful and simple. So making > the main use case hard just for supporting other use cases that are

Again, this is not fair, the main use case is link to local document, this is why I prefer solution 2) than 1). > > >>> So, solution 1 is not that bad, and > >>> solution 2 is only a feature over it, for those who use very basic > >> feature. > >>> It compare to the omnibox of chrome that try to be clever and works

> >> most > >>> situations, but some still require you to enter the http:// prefix. > >>> > >>> > >>>> I had proposed another solution in the other thread with a

> >>>> notation for proper URI notations. The idea was to use the shortcut > >>>> notation when you wanted to use document references for simplicity > >> reasons > >>>> and use the proper syntax when you use proper URIs. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe that solution wasn't that bad. I'm putting it again here

> >>>> difference using [[[…]]] instead of >>> as I had said since that > doesn't > >>>> work for images): > >>>> > >>>> * Shortcut notation for doc refs: [[label>>docref]] > >>>> * General notations for URIs: [[[label>>type:reference]]] > >>>> * Shortcut notation for images: [[image:docref]] > >>>> * General notation for URIs in images: [[[image:type:reference]]] > >>>> > >>>> It looks clunky at first but it isn't really since it represents

> we > >>>> want: > >>>> * shortcut notation for doc URIs > >>>> * full notation for any URI > >>>> > >>>> WDYT? > >>>> > >>> > >>> This again increase complexity (from a user POV) for very little > benefit > >>> IMO. It look odd and again it cannot be applied anywhere, like in > macros. > >>> So I see this fourth solution not much better than solution 3. > >> > >> You're not very logical here :) You said you wanted URIs and

> is > >> about URIs while solution 3 isn't about URIs so you should prefer > solution > >> 4 over solution 3 normally :) > >> > > > > Have I said the contrary ? 4 is better than 3, but not that much IMO > since > > we still have the split issue. 4 solve the problem for your current > needs, > > but does not lead to a general way of identifying ressources in XWiki. > > It does! It's like solution 1 actually. Again here it is (and again we > could think of another syntax if we want, we don't have to use [[[…]]],

> could use for example > > [[[label>>type:reference]]] > > Now just because we want to make it easy to type doc ref we also allow a > **shortcut** (not the canonical way!): > > [[label>>docref]] > > > Having a consistant solution is also important, and a good way to > simplify > > the user experience. > > Yes but only solution 1 provides this but at a big cost which I

> consider too large. > > Of course since this is an important decision I'd like to know what

I would like other opinions as well, especially of how others see the cost of 1), and about which is the main use case ?

> > If you're keen on URIs (as I am, thanks for reminding me that in your > email > >> btw :)), then I believe solution 4 is currently the best one. > >> > > > > I do not agree, if you're keen on URIs (and I am) Solution 1 is the

> > one, considering it will only affect a new syntax. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> -Vincent > >>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Vincent Massol <

> > > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Typos below. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi devs, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Following this thread

> >>>>>> seems clear that we need to introduce a better syntax for links

> >>>> images > >>>>>> in XWiki Syntax 2.2 (in order to cope with use cases such as > >>>>>> http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XRENDERING-290). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The need is to be able to plug new reference type handlers

> >>>>>> breaking backward compatibility in XWiki Syntax 2.2 (since right

> >>>> with > >>>>>> XWiki Syntax 2.0 and 2.1 adding a new type reference handler

> >> break > >>>>>> backward compatibility). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So here are various proposals to that effect for XWiki Syntax

> >> (I've > >>>>>> only kept the interesting proposals from the previous thread). > Please > >>>> vote > >>>>>> for the one you prefer or add new solutions if you have other

> >>>> ideas. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Proposal 1 > >>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Force XWiki Syntax 2.2 to *ALWAYS* use the full form when

> a > >>>>>> link or image, i.e. all links would need to be written: > >>>>>> [[label>>type:reference]] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Examples: > >>>>>>> * [[label>>doc:space.page]] > >>>>>>> * [[label>>doc:wiki:space.page]] > >>>>>>> * [[label>>path:/some/path]] > >>>>>>> * [[label>>url:http://xwiki.org]] > >>>>>>> * [[label>>user:evalica]] > >>>>>>> * [[image:doc:wiki:space.page@image.png]] > >>>>>>> * [[image:icon:someicon.png]] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> CONS: > >>>>>>> * Harder to write links to documents which is the main use case > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Proposal 2 > >>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Same as with XWiki Syntax 2.1 but for links or images to

> >> force > >>>>>> the user to use the "doc:" notation > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Examples: > >>>>>>> * [[label>>space.page]] or [[label>>doc:space.page]] > >>>>>>> * [[label>>doc:wiki:space.page]] > >>>>>>> * [[label>>>path:/some/path]] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Should be [[label>>path:/some/path]] > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> * [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>>url:http://xwiki.org

> >>>>>> > >>>>>> Should be [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>url: > >> http://xwiki.org > >>>> ]] > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> * [[label>>user:evalica]] > >>>>>>> * [[image:doc:wiki:space.page@image.png]] > >>>>>>> * [[image:icon:someicon.png]] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PRO: > >>>>>>> * Still easy to reference docs and images in the current wiki > >>>>>>> * Close to current XWiki Syntax 2.1 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> CONS: > >>>>>>> * Harder to write links to documents in subwikis (for workspaces > >> users > >>>>>> for example, see example of xwiki.org) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Proposal 3 > >>>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Always define the type as a link or image parameter, i.e.

> >>>>>> subwiki notation from type. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Examples: > >>>>>>> * [[label>>space.page]] or [[label>>space.page||type="doc"]] > >>>>>>> * [[label>>wiki:space.page]] or > >> [[label>>wiki:space.page||type="doc"]] > >>>>>>> * [[label>>>/some/path||type="path"]] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Should be [[label>>/some/path||type="path"]] > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> * [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>>http://xwiki.org > >>>>>> ||type="url"]] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Should be [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>

> >>>>>> ||type="url"]] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> -Vincent > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> * [[label>>evalica||type="user"]] > >>>>>>> * [[image:wiki:space.page@image.png]] or > >>>>>> [[image:wiki:space.page@image.png||type="doc"]] > >>>>>>> * [[image:someicon.png||type="icon"]] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PRO: > >>>>>>> * Still easy to reference docs > >>>>>>> * Clear separation between subwiki and types > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> CONS: > >>>>>>> * Harder to write typed links > >>>>>>> * Harder to write references in non xwiki/2.x syntax that would

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi Denis, On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; wrote: I also prefer URIs but my problem with solution 2 is having to prefix with "doc:" for links to subwikis. This is pretty common. I had proposed another solution in the other thread with a different notation for proper URI notations. The idea was to use the shortcut notation when you wanted to use document references for simplicity reasons and use the proper syntax when you use proper URIs. Maybe that solution wasn't that bad. I'm putting it again here (with a difference using [[[…]]] instead of >>> as I had said since that doesn't work for images): * Shortcut notation for doc refs: [[label>>docref]] * General notations for URIs: [[[label>>type:reference]]] * Shortcut notation for images: [[image:docref]] * General notation for URIs in images: [[[image:type:reference]]] It looks clunky at first but it isn't really since it represents what we want: * shortcut notation for doc URIs * full notation for any URI

WDYT? Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi everyone, After listening to all discussions and thinking more about it (and talking to Thomas), I see only 2 good solutions now: Solution A ======== * Don't do anything, i.e. accept that when we add a new prefix handler we break users who use the short notation for wikis named after the prefix. We would put in the release notes and in the syntax guide that users should use the full notation in case they have a wiki named "user" for example when we add the "user" prefix (similar to what we say now for all other prefixes: "doc", "attach", "url", "mailto", etc). * IMO this solution is better than the proposed solution 2, i.e. usage of [[label>>doc:extension.Extension.My Macro]] for links to multiwikis which is really too long and too much a change for users Solution B ======== * Have a shortcut notation (same as with xwiki/2.0 syntax): [[label>>ref]] where ref can be a ref to a doc or to a URL * Canonical notation: [[[label>>prefix:reference]]] for links and [[[image:…]]] for images * This is the only real solution IMO that allows both: ** extensibility without breaking existing pages ** still preserve the ability to easily and quickly reference documents * We already triple characters in our syntax: ((( and {{{. So it's not something new to add [[[ For me it's logical to have a canonical syntax for links/images and a simplified one for the main use case of a wiki, which is to create links to documents. This is so much the core of a wiki that having a simple syntax is a must have. Thanks -Vincent On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: seems clear that we need to introduce a better syntax for links and images in XWiki Syntax 2.2 (in order to cope with use cases such as http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XRENDERING-290). breaking backward compatibility in XWiki Syntax 2.2 (since right now with XWiki Syntax 2.0 and 2.1 adding a new type reference handler would break backward compatibility). only kept the interesting proposals from the previous thread). Please vote for the one you prefer or add new solutions if you have other better ideas. link or image, i.e. all links would need to be written: [[label>>type:reference]] the user to use the "doc:" notation for example, see example of xwiki.org) subwiki notation from type. ||type="url"]] [[image:wiki:space.page@image.png||type="doc"]] support link parameters _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs