1 May
2013
1 May
'13
7:44 p.m.
Hi Vincent,
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
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 :)
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.
Having a consistant solution is also important, and a good way to simplify
the user experience.
If you're keen on URIs (as I am, thanks for reminding me that in your email
Hi Denis,
On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
and I
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 comparable to
linking document in another wiki ?
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. 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
>
> 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 do not see why this is so annoying, we type http:// to start URLs, 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 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...
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, they
may simply continue to use syntax 2.1. Second, are there so much users with
that preference, that also use multiple wikis with links between them ?
Finally, we also provide other means to create documents then writing them
using the xwiki syntax. We could also think about improving the editor to
insert link/image more easily.
So is the limitation of solution 2, imposed by the need for flexibility, so
blocker, as you seems to believe ?
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 wrong,
but I do not believe there will be numerous competitor with those criteria.
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 in
most
situations, but some still require you to enter
the http:// prefix.
> 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?
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. 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 best
one, considering it will only affect a new syntax.
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
> 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
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs