On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2016, at 15:43, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
>> Hi Marius,
>>
>>> On 12 Apr 2016, at 14:56, Marius Dumitru Florea <
>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> We need to decide what is the expected link reference serialization
>>> produced by the WYSIWYG editor when you create a link to a wiki page.
I
>>> think we have to choose between 3
options:
>>>
>>> (1) Output untyped (ambiguous) link references whenever possible
>>> (2) Always output unambiguous (typed) link references (both 'doc:'
and
>>> 'space:')
>>> (3) Always output 'doc:' link references (no 'space:'
references)
>>>
>>> Let's see the details:
>>>
>>> = OPTION 1: Output untyped link references whenever possible =
>>>
>>> == <7.2 ==
>>>
>>> Link from A.B
>>> * to A.WebHome (space home page) => [[WebHome]]
>>> * to A.C (same space) => [[C]]
>>
>> I don’t understand why you’re using relative links in your 2 examples
>> above. Option (1) says untyped, it doesn’t say convert links into
relative
>> links.
>>
>> So for me that would be:
>>
>> * to A.WebHome (space home page) => [[A.WebHome]]
>> * to A.C (same space) => [[A.C]]
>>
>>> * to X.Y (different space) => [[X.Y]]
>>> * to X.WebHome => [[X.WebHome]]
>>>
>>> == 7.2+ ==
>>>
>>> Link from A.B.WebHome
>>> * to A.WebHome (its parent) => [[space:A]]
>>
>> Note 1: We could also imagine introducing a syntax for absolute links
such
>> as [[:A]]
>> Note 2: We could also imagine introducing a syntax for parent links
such
>> as [[..A]]
>>
>>> * to A.B.C or A.B.C.WebHome or A.C or A.C.WebHome (child or sibling)
=>
>>> [[C]] (very ambiguous)
>>
>> This is using a relative notation. But (1) is not about transforming
links
>> into relative links.
>>
>> so for me this is:
>> * => [[A.B.C]]
>> * => [[A.C]]
>>
>> I’m stopping reading here since first we need to clarify if (1) is
about
>> a) untyped or b) using relative
references.
>>
>> IMO it should be about a) and doesn’t have to do b).
>>
>>
>
>> Maybe I misunderstood something?
>>
>
> Generating relative references is a must for me (whenever possible), no
> matter what output format we choose. I'm surprised there's any doubt
about
> this. The current WYSIWYG editor is
generating relative references and
the
CKEditor
should continue to do this. Relative references have many
advantages (eases the refactoring, allows you to export a hierarchy and
import it somewhere else, etc.).
Didn’t realize the WYSIWYG was already doing this!
Indeed there are pros. The cons is that it can make the linking more
ambiguous.,
but overall it’s probably a good thing.
Also note that ideally we’d need to not convert
existing links when
going through the WYSIWYG editor. That’s true independently of
this
discussion though.
This is handled by XML comments containing the source
reference so the
only thing the WYSIWYG need to do is to not touch those comments
(unless the user explicitly modify the target of course).
It's already the case. The link reference is preserved as is unless you
edit the link and apply the changes (i.e. you close the link dialog with
the OK button).
Thanks for the reply, I understand now.
> So option (1) is about untyped relative links, option (2) is about typed
> relative links and option (3) is about doc: relative links. In other
words:
(1)
don't generate "doc:" and "space:"
(2) generate both "doc:" and "space:"
(3) generate only "doc:" (don't hide WebHome)
I’ve now read again the first mail and I’m in favor of (2).
The main reason for me is that we want to hide WebHome and with Nested
Pages, all
links would have WebHome in them with option (3).
Option (3) is really the worst for users: they get to see both “doc:”
and
“WebHome” :)
Also note that even option (2) is not perfect because of the “doc:” and
“space:”
prefixes which are also hard to understand for users.
I also know users who use both WYSIWYG and wiki editors (and who think
that
WebHome is confusing - We’re used to it, but it’s really confusing if
you’re just starting to use XWiki - you don’t even understand what it means
at all).
To summarize: +1 for (2).
Note: My choice for (2) is based purely on a usability POV. It could be
that
implementing option (2) is so much complex that it’s not worth it and
that we’d want to wait till we change the underlying model before changing
the linking syntax.
Last note: Maybe we need to invent some completely new syntax for
linking since
currently it has become very complex. I remember of any mail
where I proposed some new syntax for links using a different syntax such as
[[[…]]]. It could be interesting to spec a new simpler syntax such as:
* Use “/“ instead of “.” (we already know that
users would prefer “/“
since they’re more used to that symbol)
* Leading “/“ means absolute. Example:
[[[/A/B]]]
* Use “..” for parent. Example: [[[..A/B]]]
Thanks
-Vincent
> Thanks,
> Marius
>
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>> * to A.B.C.D or A.B.C.D.WebHome (nested page two levels or more
below)
=>
>>> [[.C.D]] (ambiguous)
>>> * to A.C.D or A.C.D.WebHome (nested page under sibling) => [[A.C.D]]
>>> (ambiguous)
>>> * to X.Y.Z or X.Y.Z.WebHome => [[X.Y.Z]] (ambiguous)
>>>
>>> Link from A.B (terminal)
>>> * to A.WebHome (its parent) => [[space:A]]
>>> * to A.C or A.C.WebHome (sibling) => [[C]] (ambiguous)
>>> * to A.C.D or A.C.D.WebHome (nested page under sibling) => [[A.C.D]]
>>> (ambiguous)
>>> * to X.Y or X.Y.WebHome => [[X.Y]] (ambiguous)
>>>
>>> Link from A.B.C (terminal) or A.B.C.WebHome
>>> * to A.B.WebHome (its parent) => [[A.B]] (ambiguous)
>>>
>>> PROS:
>>> * shorter link references
>>> * hides WebHome from source syntax on 7.2+
>>>
>>> CONS:
>>> * ambiguous link references
>>> * complex code
>>> * different output for <7.2 and 7.2+ in case of top level space
>> [[WebHome]]
>>> or [[A.WebHome]] vs. [[space:A]] (we need to check if support for
nested
>>> spaces is available)
>>>
>>>
>>> = OPTION 2: Always output unambiguous link references =
>>>
>>> == <7.2 ==
>>>
>>> Link from A.B
>>> * to A.WebHome (space home page) => [[doc:WebHome]] (relative)
>>> * to A.C (same space) => [[doc:C]] (relative)
>>> * to X.Y (different space) => [[doc:X.Y]]
>>> * to X.WebHome => [[doc:X.WebHome]]
>>>
>>> == 7.2+ ==
>>>
>>> Link from A.B.WebHome
>>> * to A.WebHome (its parent) => [[space:A]]
>>> * to A.B.C (terminal child) => [[doc:C]] (relative)
>>> * to A.B.C.WebHome (non-terminal child) => [[space:A.B.C]] (absolute)
>>> * to A.C (terminal sibling) => [[doc:A.C]]
>>> * to A.C.WebHome (non-terminal sibling) => [[space:A.C]]
>>> * to A.B.C.D (terminal descendant) => [[doc:.C.D]] (relative)
>>> * to A.B.C.D.WebHome (non-terminal descendant) => [[space:A.B.C.D]]
>>> (absolute)
>>> * to A.C.D (terminal descendant of sibling) => [[doc:A.C.D]]
>>> * to A.C.D.WebHome (non-terminal descendant of sibling) =>
>> [[space:A.C.D]]
>>> * to X.Y.Z => [[doc:X.Y.Z]]
>>> * to X.Y.Z.WebHome => [[space:X.Y.Z]]
>>>
>>> Link from A.B (terminal)
>>> * to A.WebHome (its parent) => [[space:A]]
>>> * to A.C (terminal sibling) => [[doc:C]] (relative)
>>> * to A.C.WebHome (non-terminal sibling) => [[space:A.C]] (absolute)
>>> * to A.C.D (terminal descendant of sibling) => [[doc:.C.D]] (relative)
>>> * to A.C.D.WebHome (non-terminal descendant of sibling) =>
>> [[space:A.C.D]]
>>> * to X.Y => [[doc:X.Y]]
>>> * to X.Y.WebHome => [[space:X.Y]]
>>>
>>> Link from A.B.C (terminal) or A.B.C.WebHome
>>> * to A.B.WebHome (its parent) => [[space:A.B]] (absolute)
>>>
>>> PROS:
>>> * unambiguous link references ("what you link is what you get")
>>> * slightly less complex code (but still complex)
>>> * hides WebHome from source syntax on 7.2+
>>>
>>> CONS:
>>> * longer link references (because of "doc:" and "space:"
prefixes)
>>> * cannot specify relative 'space:' references
>>> * different output for <7.2 and 7.2+ in case of [[doc:WebHome]] vs.
>>> [[space:A]]
>>>
>>>
>>> = OPTION 3: Always output 'doc:' references =
>>>
>>> == <7.2 ==
>>>
>>> Link from A.B
>>> * to A.WebHome (space home page) => [[doc:WebHome]] (relative)
>>> * to A.C (same space) => [[doc:C]] (relative)
>>> * to X.Y (different space) => [[doc:X.Y]]
>>> * to X.WebHome => [[doc:X.WebHome]]
>>>
>>> == 7.2+ ==
>>>
>>> Link from A.B.WebHome
>>> * to A.WebHome (its parent) => [[doc:A.WebHome]]
>>> * to A.B.C (terminal child) => [[doc:C]] (relative)
>>> * to A.B.C.WebHome (non-terminal child) => [[doc:.C.WebHome]]
(relative)
>>> * to A.C (terminal sibling) =>
[[doc:A.C]]
>>> * to A.C.WebHome (non-terminal sibling) => [[doc:A.C.WebHome]]
>>> * to A.B.C.D (terminal descendant) => [[doc:.C.D]] (relative)
>>> * to A.B.C.D.WebHome (non-terminal descendant) => [[doc:.C.D.WebHome]]
>>> (relative)
>>> * to A.C.D (terminal descendant of sibling) => [[doc:A.C.D]]
>>> * to A.C.D.WebHome (non-terminal descendant of sibling) =>
>>> [[doc:A.C.D.WebHome]]
>>> * to X.Y.Z => [[doc:X.Y.Z]]
>>> * to X.Y.Z.WebHome => [[doc:X.Y.Z.WebHome]]
>>>
>>> Link from A.B (terminal)
>>> * to A.WebHome (its parent) => [[doc:WebHome]] (relative)
>>> * to A.C (terminal sibling) => [[doc:C]] (relative)
>>> * to A.C.WebHome (non-terminal sibling) => [[doc:.C.WebHome]]
(relative)
>>> * to A.C.D (terminal descendant of
sibling) => [[doc:.C.D]] (relative)
>>> * to A.C.D.WebHome (non-terminal descendant of sibling) =>
>>> [[doc:.C.D.WebHome]] (relative)
>>> * to X.Y => [[doc:X.Y]]
>>> * to X.Y.WebHome => [[doc:X.Y.WebHome]]
>>>
>>> Link from A.B.C (terminal)
>>> * to A.B.WebHome (its parent) => [[doc:WebHome]] (relative)
>>>
>>> Link from A.B.C.WebHome
>>> * to A.B.WebHome (its parent) => [[doc:A.B.WebHome]] (absolute)
>>>
>>> PROS:
>>> * unambiguous link references ("what you link is what you get")
>>> * relative references for nested non-terminal descendants
>>> * same output for <7.2 and 7.2+
>>> * simpler code (easier to maintain)
>>>
>>> CONS:
>>> * doesn't hide WebHome from source syntax
>>> * longer link references (because of "doc:" prefix and
"WebHome"
suffix)
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't like ambiguous links so I'm against option (1). I don't
think
the
>>> WYSIWYG editor users care too much
about the wiki syntax (option 2),
as I
>>
commented on
http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13083, so I'm +1 for
> option
>> (3).
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marius
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs