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.” 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
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Jean Simard [email protected] Research engineer at XWiki SAS http://www.xwiki.com Committer on the XWiki.org project http://www.xwiki.org _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs