Hi Johannes, On Mar 28, 2011, at 12:43 PM, jstoldt wrote: Can you explain why you need the title parameter and why my proposal doesn't address your use case? If you're talking only about backward compatibility then it's a different topic. BTW this is why it would be deprecated and not removed. Please keep separate the 2 topics: * what we want to have * how we support existing users See http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XRENDERING-61 Thanks -Vincent

On Mar 28, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Luca Anca wrote: Indeed you're right. Example: {{box}} image:icon:tick text here {{/box}} Right now I'd be in favor of dropping also the image parameter (again not talking about backward compat here). Any use case where we'd need image or title params? Thanks -Vincent

On Mar 28, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Luca Anca wrote: We might not even need those params since they're already supported by using block parameters... (% style="..." %)((( {{container}} .... {{/container}} ))) Note: that's before we add block param support for macros directly (shortcut): (% style="..." %) {{container}} ... {{/container}} We need the wysiwyg editor to support adding block parameters. Indeed, that's a good option: we deprecate the current Box macro completely (100% backward compat preserved) and instead move to using the container macro. It's just that for end users using a box macro is more obvious than using a container macro IMO from a mnemotechnic POV. Thanks -Vincent

On Mar 28, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Luca Anca wrote: Layouting is different from styling for me. Container macro is mostly about layouting. Well it's needed for all the other block elements so it wouldn't be different... Nothing prevents the WYSIWYG editor to have a specific custom editor when it finds known parameters such as: html:class html:style etc Actually if you select a block in the wysiwyg and set a color for it (for ex), I'm pretty sure the wysiwyg already uses block parameters so this wouldn't be different: * select the macro * click on the color toolbar button The only harder is when you want to use advanced non visual parameters such as "class" but in this case the wysiwyg editor can have a button to add other params and it can even provide a list of known parameters in addition to allowing the user to enter new ones. You mention border, the wysiwyg editor could offer a border button or a "known style" (as marius has added in 3.0). Indeed we need to brainstorm more and clarify this. IMO the need for a box macro (or container or whatever you want to name it) is to prevent the user from having to specify a technical class name. However it doesn't mean that if the user has to configure more the behavior he has to use macro parameters. He could use block parameters instead. It's a choice and we need to decide if we want to include styling in macro parameters or in block parameters. Advantage of block parameters is that they'll work consistently across the board for all macros whereas macro parameters need to be defined for each macro and each macro has to have code to support them (ie read them and do something with them). Thanks -Vincent

Am 28.03.2011 14:14, schrieb Vincent Massol: Hi, my experience is that many macros behave different, when you apply a style: (% class="..." style="width:..." %) {{somemacro/}} As far as i remember its not always enclosed in a <div></div> It would be nice if all *rendering* macros behave in the same consistent manner. Wouldn't it be a better solution if all rendering macros support (at least) a basic set of common parameters ? e.g. 4 html core attributes (class, id, style, title): http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_standardattributes.asp Macro implementation should apply those parameters always to the first html markup generated. This would imo make it easier to apply custom styling in a consistent way. btw, Its often a surprise to me how (% ... %) renders. You can highlight one individual header: (% class="highlight" %) = my highlighted header but you can't highlight an item in a list of items the same way: * item * item (% class="highlight" %) * not highlighted - sigh :( bye Andreas

Vincent, could you please clarify ? Your response left me in a state of confusion. Is it true when using this group syntax the macro is supposed to *always* enclose its content in a <div> ? If not what is the exact definition of when to enclose it in <div> ? Using this syntax (is inline==standalone ? ) (which is not yet supported if I understand you right ) I might pass parameters to that macro but which parameters the macro supports depends on the macros programmers decision. (there is no common set supported) Right ? thanks for clarification Andreas