17 Sep
2015
17 Sep
'15
1:32 p.m.
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.
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?
Thanks,
Eduard
----------
[1] http://markmail.org/message/cehvpds5qmljq5f7
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspace
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpage
17 Sep
17 Sep
2:10 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] "Child/sibling/descendant page" vs "subpage"
On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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.
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_T…
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
2:51 p.m.
IMO the "sibling", "parent", "child", "leaf"
terminology is too distracting
since they are metaphors and, due to its real-world signification, some
users might focus too much on that instead of simply focusing on the
hierarchy aspect which is very simply communicated by the sub prefix.
E.g. of a possible misinterpretation:
A user wants to create a document under (sub) the structure of another
document, he does not want to have his documents start giving "birth" to
little baby (child) documents, and then those documents could have little
baby brothers or sisters (siblings) and so on (descendants), thus creating
a "dynasty" of documents, instead of a structure/hierarchy.
Yes, that sounds weird, but that`s how it would sound like, IMO, to an
English native speaker. As an exercise, try translating that terminology in
another language (your native language preferably) and you will get a
relatively similar result which is not really compatible IMO with
"documents".
The tree structure by itself is an extremely generic structure and could
easily be mapped in certain implementations to these "dynasty" metaphors,
however documents are pretty specific (not much room for interpretation and
they are not living things) so using the "dynasty" approach feels a bit off.
There is also the "child vs descendant" issue that I don`t think we want to
start dealing with (differentiating) in our UIs.
Just my concern or maybe I am being too picky, but it probably comes down
to what we want to choose to ignore, as long as it is our intentional
choice to do that.
Thanks,
Eduard
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru (enygma2002(a)gmail.com(mailto:
enygma2002(a)gmail.com)) 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.
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_T…
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
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
2:59 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] "Child/sibling/descendant page" vs "subpage"
On 17 Sep 2015 at 14:51:32, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) wrote:
IMO the "sibling", "parent",
"child", "leaf" terminology is too distracting
since they are metaphors and, due to its real-world signification, some
users might focus too much on that instead of simply focusing on the
hierarchy aspect which is very simply communicated by the sub prefix.
E.g. of a possible misinterpretation:
A user wants to create a document under (sub) the structure of another
document, he does not want to have his documents start giving "birth" to
little baby (child) documents, and then those documents could have little
baby brothers or sisters (siblings) and so on (descendants), thus creating
a "dynasty" of documents, instead of a structure/hierarchy.
Yes, that sounds weird, but that`s how it would sound like, IMO, to an
English native speaker. As an exercise, try translating that terminology in
another language (your native language preferably) and you will get a
relatively similar result which is not really compatible IMO with
"documents".
The tree structure by itself is an extremely generic structure and could
easily be mapped in certain implementations to these "dynasty" metaphors,
however documents are pretty specific (not much room for interpretation and
they are not living things) so using the "dynasty" approach feels a bit off.
There is also the "child vs descendant" issue that I don`t think we want to
start dealing with (differentiating) in our UIs.
Just my concern or maybe I am being too picky, but it probably comes down
to what we want to choose to ignore, as long as it is our intentional
choice to do that.
The world is all about metaphors and that’s good and what we want since that what makes
something easy to memorize and understand.
Look at those words: Space, Page, Document, Folder. They’re all metaphors.
What’s important is to pick metaphors that people can understand. For example we know that
Folder could possibly have been a better metaphor than Space.
I find that Child/Children/Parent/Descendants/Siblings are perfect metaphores because
people know them and use them daily.
Subspace is not a well known metaphore. Nor is subpage.
IMO…
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Eduard
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru (enygma2002(a)gmail.com(mailto:
> enygma2002(a)gmail.com)) 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.
> >
> > 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_T…
>
> 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
3:15 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:59 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
On 17 Sep 2015 at 14:51:32, Eduard Moraru (enygma2002(a)gmail.com(mailto:
enygma2002(a)gmail.com)) wrote:
I obviously agree with this.
IMO the "sibling", "parent",
"child", "leaf" terminology is too
distracting
since they are metaphors and, due to its
real-world signification, some
users might focus too much on that instead of simply focusing on the
hierarchy aspect which is very simply communicated by the sub prefix.
E.g. of a possible misinterpretation:
A user wants to create a document under (sub) the structure of another
document, he does not want to have his documents start giving "birth" to
little baby (child) documents, and then those documents could have little
baby brothers or sisters (siblings) and so on (descendants), thus
creating
a "dynasty" of documents, instead of a
structure/hierarchy.
Yes, that sounds weird, but that`s how it would sound like, IMO, to an
English native speaker. As an exercise, try translating that terminology
in
another language (your native language
preferably) and you will get a
relatively similar result which is not really compatible IMO with
"documents".
The tree structure by itself is an extremely generic structure and could
easily be mapped in certain implementations to these "dynasty" metaphors,
however documents are pretty specific (not much room for interpretation
and
they are not living things) so using the
"dynasty" approach feels a bit
off.
There is also the "child vs descendant" issue that I don`t think we want
to
start dealing with (differentiating) in our UIs.
Just my concern or maybe I am being too picky, but it probably comes down
to what we want to choose to ignore, as long as it is our intentional
choice to do that.
The world is all about metaphors and that’s good and what we want since
that what makes something easy to memorize and understand.
Look at those words: Space, Page, Document, Folder. They’re all metaphors.
What’s important is to pick metaphors that people can understand. For
example we know that Folder could possibly have been a better metaphor than
Space.
I find that Child/Children/Parent/Descendants/Siblings are perfect
metaphores because people know them and use them daily.
Subspace is not a well known metaphore. Nor is
subpage.
Just for the record, some numbers:
* Nested Space(s): 15,100 results
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+wars&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=…
* Subspace(s): 830,000 results
https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#safe=off&hl=en&q=%2B%28%22subspa…
* define: subspace
https://www.google.com/search?q=define&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=off&a…
* wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspace
IMO…
Technically I also side with the standard tree terminology, can`t really
avoid that. I am just considering a non-technical view on it, as far as I
can imagine it :) and trying to see if we can improve the presentation in
any way.
Thanks,
Eduard
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Eduard
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru (enygma2002(a)gmail.com
(mailto:
> enygma2002(a)gmail.com)) 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.
> >
> > 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_T…
>
> 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
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
4:44 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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.
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_T…
BTW Terminal Page could be replaced by Leaf Page if we
wanted too but maybe that’s too technical?
a node with no children != a node that can't have children
Thanks,
Marius
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
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
5:19 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] "Child/sibling/descendant page" vs "subpage"
On 17 Sep 2015 at 16:44:28, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
Indeed good point, we could say that a Terminal Page is a special case of a Leaf Page :)
Thanks
-Vincent
On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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.
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_T…
BTW Terminal Page could be replaced by Leaf Page
if we wanted too but maybe that’s too technical?
a node with no children != a node that can't have children Thanks,
Marius
>
> 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
18 Sep
18 Sep
11:27 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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
* the "Siblings" viewer (live table) will show only "B" (or nothing?)
for B
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_T…
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
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
11:34 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] "Child/sibling/descendant page" vs "subpage"
On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:27:33, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
I think right now it also shows A but this could be fixed.
On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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 * the "Siblings" viewer (live table) will
show only "B" (or nothing?) for B
There’s no sibling for C in your definition.
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).
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
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
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_T…
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
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
11:51 a.m.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:27:33, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM,
vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
I think right now it also shows A but this could be fixed.
On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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 * 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?
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
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
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_T…
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
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
noon
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] "Child/sibling/descendant page" vs "subpage"
On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:51:21, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
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
On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:27:33, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM,
vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
I think right now it also shows A but this could be fixed.
On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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 * 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? > 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_T…
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
12:05 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] "Child/sibling/descendant page" vs "subpage"
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.
On 18/09/2015 12:00, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:51:21, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
--
Jean Simard
jean.simard(a)xwiki.com
Research engineer at XWiki SAS
http://www.xwiki.com
Committer on the XWiki.org project
http://www.xwiki.org
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM,
vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
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
On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:27:33, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM,
vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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? > 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_T…
>>>
>>> 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
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
12:08 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] "Child/sibling/descendant page" vs "subpage"
Hi Jean,
On 18 Sep 2015 at 12:05:22, Jean SIMARD
(jean.simard@xwiki.com(mailto:jean.simard@xwiki.com)) 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, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:51:21, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
--
Jean Simard
jean.simard(a)xwiki.com
Research engineer at XWiki SAS
http://www.xwiki.com
Committer on the XWiki.org project
http://www.xwiki.org
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM,
vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
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
On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:27:33, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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? > 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_T…
>>>
>>> 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
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
12:15 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] "Child/sibling/descendant page" vs "subpage"
On 18/09/2015 12:08, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
Hi Jean,
On 18 Sep 2015 at 12:05:22, Jean SIMARD
(jean.simard@xwiki.com(mailto:jean.simard@xwiki.com)) wrote:
Yep, and also
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.
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
--
Jean Simard
jean.simard(a)xwiki.com
Research engineer at XWiki SAS
http://www.xwiki.com
Committer on the XWiki.org project
http://www.xwiki.org
On 18/09/2015 12:00, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:51:21, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
--
Jean Simard
jean.simard(a)xwiki.com
Research engineer at XWiki SAS
http://www.xwiki.com
Committer on the XWiki.org project
http://www.xwiki.org
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM,
vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>
> On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:27:33, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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_T…
>>>
>>> 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
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
12:18 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] "Child/sibling/descendant page" vs "subpage"
On 18 Sep 2015 at 12:15:19, Jean SIMARD
(jean.simard@xwiki.com(mailto:jean.simard@xwiki.com)) wrote:
On 18/09/2015 12:08, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
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! :)
Hi Jean,
On 18 Sep 2015 at 12:05:22, Jean SIMARD
(jean.simard@xwiki.com(mailto:jean.simard@xwiki.com)) wrote:
Yep, and also 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.” 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, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:51:21, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:27:33, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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_T…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
17 Sep
17 Sep
2:50 p.m.
Hello.
I think it's a good topic to discuss.
2015-09-17 13:32 GMT+02:00 Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com>om>:
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.
Then we should use "descendant", because the concept of subpage, for me,
does not necessary cover more than one level in the hierarchy. The subpage
of a subpage become a "subsubpage".
The term "descendant" does not have this problem.
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?
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
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
2:54 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] "Child/sibling/descendant page" vs "subpage"
On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru
(enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) 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.
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.
On this point, I find it nice to be able to say “Nested Spaces” and understand what it
means.
What’s your recommendation? Saying “A Space contained inside of other Spaces” is bit too
verbose when talking about the feature. Similary saying “A space with subspaces” or “A
Space inside a Space” are too verbose too.
Hierarchical Spaces would be another valid term but I find Nested Spaces easier to
pronounce and we’ve started using it across the board and I don’t feel the cost of
changing everywhere would justify the move to Hierarchical Spaces :)
In addition this is not a term used in the UI so it’s mostly an issue for documentation
(which doesn’t mean it’s not important).
Thanks
-Vincent
WDYT?
Thanks,
Eduard
----------
[1] http://markmail.org/message/cehvpds5qmljq5f7
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspace
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpage
3:09 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:54 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru (enygma2002(a)gmail.com(mailto:
enygma2002(a)gmail.com)) wrote:
Actually my intent was to minimise verbosity here as well. I was simply
thinking of "subspace", since it is completely equivalent (in any way) with
"Nested Space" and with the above mentioned verbose alternatives.
Thanks,
Eduard
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.
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.
On this point, I find it nice to be able to say “Nested Spaces” and
understand what it means.
What’s your recommendation? Saying “A Space contained inside of other
Spaces” is bit too verbose when talking about the feature. Similary saying
“A space with subspaces” or “A Space inside a Space” are too verbose too.
Hierarchical Spaces would be another valid term but I find Nested Spaces
easier to pronounce and we’ve started using it across the board and I don’t
feel the cost of changing everywhere would justify the move to Hierarchical
Spaces :)
In addition this is not a term used in the UI so it’s mostly an issue for
documentation (which doesn’t mean it’s not important).
Thanks
-Vincent
WDYT?
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
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
3286
days inactive
3287
days old
17 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Eduard Moraru -
Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau -
Jean SIMARD -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
vincent＠massol.net