On 18 Sep 2015 at 12:15:19, Jean SIMARD ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
On 18/09/2015 12:08, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Jean,
On 18 Sep 2015 at 12:05:22, Jean SIMARD ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
In the XPath terminology for example, children are immediate descendant of a node. The grand-children and grand-grand-children (etc.) are called descendants.
http://www.w3schools.com/xsl/xpath_nodes.asp
My 2cts.
PS: And in French, when you say "ce sont les enfants de M. Truc", it's only about immediate descendant, not about grand-children.
Check definition 3 of https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/enfant
"(Par extension) Descendant direct et indirect. Nous sommes tous enfants d’Adam.” Yep, and also
You said “yep" but when you said “it's **only** about immediate descendant, **not** about grand-children.” then you didn’t agree obviously. So it’s good you changed your mind! :)
2. Fils ou fille, de tout âge, par relation au père et à la mère, ou à l’un des deux seulement.
So the meaning of "enfant" depends on the context and can be used in both cases (only immediate childrens or all the descendants). Just wanted to say to be careful to base a conclusion on an incomplete information.
err… I’ve mentioned this exactly in my previous answer, so I’m having a hard time to understand your point. I said: " I guess it depends how you consider Children. If you consider it to mean Children, grand-children, grand-grand-children, etc and use it as a general means, I guess it’s fine. I don’t know if this is acceptable in English or not. What I know is that if you say “Enfants” in French it can mean either immediate Children or all the children in the hierarchy (grand-children, grand-grand-children). Said differently, I have the feeling it’s better to have a More Actions menu entry named “Children” than having one named “Descendants” because I feel Children is a term more used. “ Am I missing something? :) Thanks -Vincent
Thanks -Vincent
On 18/09/2015 12:00, [email protected] wrote:
On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:51:21, Marius Dumitru Florea ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:27:33, Marius Dumitru Florea ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: >> >>> With the introduction of Nested Spaces / Nested Documents, we find >>> ourselves having to expand our terminology to accommodate the tree-like >>> structure of spaces/documents that we are managing. >>> >>> IMO, we have started going in the wrong direction with using standard tree >>> terminology directly in XWiki's UI, introducing new terms that simple users >>> could be easily confused by or overwhelmed (this adding to the already >>> existing ones). >>> >>> The specific issue I have in mind is how do we refer child entities for >>> each concept (wiki, space, page) and how does this scale when the hierarchy >>> increases. >>> >>> What I propose is that we Keep It SSimple (*™*) :) and just use the "sub" >>> prefix for the concept at hand. >>> >>> Examples: >>> * wiki -> subwiki (here we can continue using "wiki", as discussed >>> previously [1], since we don`t actually support nested wikis yet, but if >>> "subwiki" is used in a conversation it still makes perfect sense) >>> * space -> subspace [2] >>> * page -> subpage [3] >>> >>> The problem with the term "child", as pointed out by Marius in an offline >>> chat, has indeed the issue that it can only be applied correctly for first >>> level descendants, after which it becomes inaccurate, since starting with >>> the second level the term "descendant" is more appropriate. >> > >> I’m not sure about this. I think Children could be used generically to mean any level of Children but would need to be checked. > > If you have A.B.C: > > * the "Children" viewer (live table) will show "B, C" for A
I think right now it also shows A but this could be fixed.
> * the "Siblings" viewer (live table) will show only "B" (or nothing?) for B
There’s no sibling for C in your definition.
Yes, I know what siblings are :) but I said "for B" not "for C".
If you had: A.B.C A.B.D A.E
Then the sibling for A.B.C would be A.B.D. Thus if you’re on A.B.C and ask for Sibling you’ll see D in the LT.
If you’re on A.B and ask for siblings you’ll see only E (and not E, C, D since C and D are not siblings of A.B).
So you don't think that the statement
"E and C are both children of A but they are not siblings because they don't have he same parent"
is confusing?
I guess it depends how you consider Children. If you consider it to mean Children, grand-children, grand-grand-children, etc and use it as a general means, I guess it’s fine. I don’t know if this is acceptable in English or not. What I know is that if you say “Enfants” in French it can mean either immediate Children or all the children in the hierarchy (grand-children, grand-grand-children).
Said differently, I have the feeling it’s better to have a More Actions menu entry named “Children” than having one named “Descendants” because I feel Children is a term more used.
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks -Vincent
> So B and C are both children of A but are not siblings. That can be > confusing. You need the tree view to see the actual hierarchy. > > Thanks, > Marius > >>> >>> All of this becomes unnecessarily complicated and, IMO, we should avoid >>> dealing with it by using the "sub" prefix which is much easier to grasp and >>> accept. >>> >>> On a similar note, I also find the term "nested" to be a bit unnecessarily >>> complicated, specially for non-technical and non-english native users. >>> >>> WDYT? >> >> I don’t like the “Sub" terminology because it’s incomplete. It’s not complete because you still need words for Parents, Siblings, Root, etc. >> >> I'd much prefer to use a standard Tree terminology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure)#Terminologies_used_in_Tr... >> >> BTW Terminal Page could be replaced by Leaf Page if we wanted too but maybe that’s too technical? >> >> I’d be ok to replace subwiki by Child Wiki/Children Wikis to be consistent. >> >> So overall I find Child/Children, Parent, and Siblings very easy to understand by any simple user. I find that using Sub, Parent, Siblings is not better (and it would certainly not replace Sibling). >> >> WDYT? >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> Thanks, >>> Eduard >>> >>> ---------- >>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/cehvpds5qmljq5f7 >>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspace >>> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpage >>