On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition
with WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
Cool :) We've been waiting for a long time about this feature! See below.
The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a content or a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor. The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the content and/or parameters should be edited. Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter, which currently produces this code:
<div class="box infomessage"> <div class="title"> <span class="icon info"></span> some title </div> Some content </div>
We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a specific class around the content to tell the editor it should only allow editing this content, e.g.:
<div class="box infomessage"> <div class="title"> <span class="icon info"></span> some title </div> <span class="editable-content">Some content</span> </div>
By “users”, I guess you mean macro developers?
Here yes it's the macro developer. I'll try to be more specific in my answers.
So if I understand you well, you’re not planning to add a
getter/setters to the Macro descriptor, to tell that the macro content contains wiki markup and that it should be editable in the WYSIWYG editor?
Actually we're planning to add the getter/setter **and** the specific markup for the editor. The getter/setter (which I called the flag above), is here to specify that the macro will contain inline editable content in WYSIWYG. The markup will specify *where* exactly is this content, and what shouldn't be changed.
About that "flag", you seems to plan a boolean but I feel something more generic that we want to introduce since a long time would be better: make the content descriptor return a type like parameters descriptors do. The kind of inline editing you have in mind right now would then be associated to the type List<Block> for example (or CompositeBlock
or some another type if we want to differentiate between wiki content modified by the macro and wiki content not modified by the macro
We need this differentiation.
Sure but as I said you can differentiate using types too and we need content types for other use cases so it's a good occasion. Also when you use the type you can differentiate between wiki content and HTML content and support inline editing of HTML macro in the same system for example.
I'm not against your proposal. It's a bit more work though, to define the types, but I suppose it's worth the effort.
). The other types would be used in other use cases (syntax coloring for scripts, json editor, etc.). The idea of using Java type is to be consistent with parameters and reuse existing the displayers in the macro modal window for example but it can cover this need too.
I guess that if the flag is set and the markup is not present, then
the
entire content is considered as editable.
Is that because you want to be finer-grained and have macro content
which can have parts editable with the WYSIWYG while having other parts of the content not editable (for example)?
It's exactly why yes. On my example, the macro user won't be able to change the content of the title.
Technically Macros don’t generate HTML, only XDOM. So in order to
make it easier for java macro developers, I’d suggest to introduce some new wrapping Block to indicate this information. We might need something similar for wiki macros too, to make it more reusable and typed.
I'd need to look more on wrapping block but after a quick overlook it seems to make sense indeed.
About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute
and to ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as for a parameter named foo:
<span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo
parameter value</span>
What’s your idea for editing parameters requiring WYSIWYG? How do you present them in the UI? Do you have any mockup?
I don't have any mockup right now. FTM I see it like this: - when creating the macro, the current text input are improved with the CKEditor for the editable content/parameters - when editing the macro, you stay in the main editor UI, but the content is now editable instead of opening back the macro UI
However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases
such as:
<span class="editable-content">Some content with <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a parameter</span></span>
So: 1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named "editable-content" which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
Small details, there’s already the “contenteditable” notion that exists (see https://developer.mozilla.org/fr/docs/Web/HTML/Attributs_ universels/contenteditable) so “editable-content” is quite close. Maybe we should have something more xwiki-specific? or more WYSIWYG-specific? Like “editable-wysiwyg” or “wysiwyg-editable”.
I'm open to suggestion on this one. "wysiwyg-editable" could be nice.
My main comment is what I put above: how do we make it easy for
macro developers to specify this information.
2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
editing of parameters?
Before answering that part, I would need to understand what’s the
proposal in term of UI.
Note that the main use case is for content but it’s nice if you can
also support parameters. Now, accepting markup in parameters is not really a great use case IMO and is usually a design issue so I’m not sure we should spend that much time in supporting that. WDYT?
We just discuss about macro parameters with Ludovic and apparently they cannot support line returns, so we might have to use a custom editor for those.
The only macro parameter I know ATM that supports markup is the
“title” param of the {{box}} macro and I think it’s badly designed. Note: if you check the recent {{figure}} macro, I implemented this need by having a {{figureCaption}} nested macro.
BTW this raises a question, will you support WYSIWYG editing of
nested macros?
Not for the moment.
Simon
Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Simon
[snip]
-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS [email protected] More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne