19 Oct
2010
19 Oct
'10
6:57 p.m.
Hi devs,
I'd like to propose 3 things:
1) Add support for symbols/emoticons using our new system in XWiki Syntax 2.1, i.e.
image:symbol:<symbol name>
Another possibility is: image:icon:<icon name>
ex: image:symbol:success (for the success symbol)
2) Use the existing silk icon library and be able to reference all icons using their file
names as the symbol name.
For ex, image:symbol:thumb_up
3) Modify the Box macro to accept a ResourceReference as its image parameter so that all
valid image resource references can be specified (including the new symbol/icon scheme).
WDYT?
This will solve the emoticon/symbol need + the generic way of adding a box with any
symbol.
Open questions:
A) Do we need to handle icon size? If so, how? (answer: with an image parameter)
B) Do we want to expose all silk icons? What if we use another library later on, will we
be able to support all existing silk symbols? Thus, do we need to pick a subset and settle
on names independent from the underlying library?
For A) IMO we don't need it now and we can always use an image param later on if need
be.
For B) I'm tempted to think that a set of well-known symbols independent from the
underlying library is better (but more work since we need to define that set and the
names).
Thanks
-Vincent
19 Oct
19 Oct
10:22 p.m.
On 10/19/2010 07:57 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi devs,
I'd like to propose 3 things:
1) Add support for symbols/emoticons using our new system in XWiki Syntax 2.1, i.e.
image:symbol:<symbol name>
Another possibility is: image:icon:<icon name>
+1 for icon scheme
ex: image:symbol:success (for the success symbol)
2) Use the existing silk icon library and be able to reference all icons using their file
names as the symbol name.
I'm -0 for file name. As you say below, I think generic names
independent from the underlying icon library are better.
For ex, image:symbol:thumb_up
3) Modify the Box macro to accept a ResourceReference
as its image parameter so that all valid image resource references can be specified
(including the new symbol/icon scheme).
+1
WDYT?
This will solve the emoticon/symbol need + the generic way of adding a box with any
symbol.
Open questions:
A) Do we need to handle icon size? If so, how? (answer: with an image parameter)
B) Do we want to expose all silk icons? What if we use another library later on, will we
be able to support all existing silk symbols? Thus, do we need to pick a subset and settle
on names independent from the underlying library?
For A) IMO we don't need it now and we can always
use an image param later on if need be.
For B) I'm tempted to think that a set of well-known symbols independent from the
underlying library is better (but more work since we need to define that set and the
names).
+1
Thanks,
Marius
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
20 Oct
20 Oct
7:35 a.m.
On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:22 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
On 10/19/2010 07:57 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Just to be clear: when I said file name I meant file name without the extension of
course.
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi devs,
I'd like to propose 3 things:
1) Add support for symbols/emoticons using our new system in XWiki Syntax 2.1, i.e.
image:symbol:<symbol name>
Another possibility is: image:icon:<icon
name>
+1 for icon scheme
ex: image:symbol:success (for the success symbol)
2) Use the existing silk icon library and be able to reference all icons using their file
names as the symbol name.
I'm -0 for file name. As you say below, I think generic names
independent from the underlying icon library are better. For ex,
image:symbol:thumb_up
3) Modify the Box macro to accept a
ResourceReference as its image parameter so that all valid image resource references can
be specified (including the new symbol/icon scheme).
+1
WDYT?
This will solve the emoticon/symbol need + the generic way of adding a box with any
symbol.
Open questions:
A) Do we need to handle icon size? If so, how? (answer: with an image parameter)
B) Do we want to expose all silk icons? What if we use another library later on, will we
be able to support all existing silk symbols? Thus, do we need to pick a subset and settle
on names independent from the underlying library?
For A) IMO we don't need it now and we can
always use an image param later on if need be.
For B) I'm tempted to think that a set of well-known symbols independent from the
underlying library is better (but more work since we need to define that set and the
names).
+1
Thanks,
Marius
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
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 
10:07 a.m.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 18:57, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
I'd like to propose 3 things:
1) Add support for symbols/emoticons using our new system in XWiki Syntax 2.1, i.e.
image:symbol:<symbol name>
Another possibility is: image:icon:<icon name>
+1 for icon
ex: image:symbol:success (for the success symbol)
2) Use the existing silk icon library and be able to reference all icons using their file
names as the symbol name.
For ex, image:symbol:thumb_up
3) Modify the Box macro to accept a ResourceReference as its image parameter so that all
valid image resource references can be specified (including the new symbol/icon scheme).
+1
WDYT?
This will solve the emoticon/symbol need + the generic way of adding a box with any
symbol.
Open questions:
A) Do we need to handle icon size? If so, how? (answer: with an image parameter)
B) Do we want to expose all silk icons? What if we use another library later on, will we
be able to support all existing silk symbols? Thus, do we need to pick a subset and settle
on names independent from the underlying library?
For A) IMO we don't need it now and we can always use an image param later on if need
be.
In a case of a list of well known icon you find find in many places i
think it's better to always download the same and not resize it server
side, that way it will be in the browser cache most of the time. And
you can still resize it client side.
For B) I'm tempted to think that a set of
well-known symbols independent from the underlying library is better (but more work since
we need to define that set and the names).
Another possibility is to have image:silk:somesilkifilename.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
10:59 a.m.
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 18:57, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
I thought about this too but I didn't like it too much since it means silk becomes an
"API" and we cannot remove it as otherwise we'll break people's pages.
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi devs,
I'd like to propose 3 things:
1) Add support for symbols/emoticons using our new system in XWiki Syntax 2.1, i.e.
image:symbol:<symbol name>
Another possibility is: image:icon:<icon name>
+1 for icon
ex: image:symbol:success (for the success symbol)
2) Use the existing silk icon library and be able to reference all icons using their file
names as the symbol name.
For ex, image:symbol:thumb_up
3) Modify the Box macro to accept a ResourceReference as its image parameter so that all
valid image resource references can be specified (including the new symbol/icon scheme).
+1
WDYT?
This will solve the emoticon/symbol need + the generic way of adding a box with any
symbol.
Open questions:
A) Do we need to handle icon size? If so, how? (answer: with an image parameter)
B) Do we want to expose all silk icons? What if we use another library later on, will we
be able to support all existing silk symbols? Thus, do we need to pick a subset and settle
on names independent from the underlying library?
For A) IMO we don't need it now and we can always use an image param later on if need
be.
In a case of a list of well known icon you find find in many places i
think it's better to always download the same and not resize it server
side, that way it will be in the browser cache most of the time. And
you can still resize it client side.
For B) I'm tempted to think that a set of
well-known symbols independent from the underlying library is better (but more work since
we need to define that set and the names).
Another possibility is to have image:silk:somesilkifilename. 
11:05 a.m.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
I'd like to propose 3 things:
1) Add support for symbols/emoticons using our new system in XWiki Syntax 2.1, i.e.
image:symbol:<symbol name>
Another possibility is: image:icon:<icon name>
ex: image:symbol:success (for the success symbol)
+1 for image:icon
2) Use the existing silk icon library and be able to reference all icons using their file
names as the symbol name.
For ex, image:symbol:thumb_up
+0, we already rely on this library a lot and I'm not sure there are
serious alternatives (ie. open source libs with that much 16x16px
icons). It feels a bit hackish to have a long term dependency on the
silk naming scheme but I have the feeling that it's becoming a de
facto standard for web icons.
3) Modify the Box macro to accept a ResourceReference as its image parameter so that all
valid image resource references can be specified (including the new symbol/icon scheme).
+1
WDYT?
This will solve the emoticon/symbol need + the generic way of adding a box with any
symbol.
Open questions:
A) Do we need to handle icon size? If so, how? (answer: with an image parameter)
Not needed imho:
- icons are pixel art and are likely to look very bad when resized
- we can do it with generic (%%) parameters right ?
B) Do we want to expose all silk icons? What if we use
another library later on, will we be able to support all existing silk symbols? Thus, do
we need to pick a subset and settle on names independent from the underlying library?
Same as above.
For A) IMO we don't need it now and we can always
use an image param later on if need be.
For B) I'm tempted to think that a set of well-known symbols independent from the
underlying library is better (but more work since we need to define that set and the
names).
If there was an initiative like the freedesktop icon naming scheme
(http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-naming-spec/icon-naming-spec-latest.h…)
for the web I'd indeed give my +1 to use it. But AFAIK there's none
for the moment, we could start one and try to gather multiple OSS
icons set and build a subset ... but it seems like a lot of work for
our needs.
Thanks,
JV.
21 Oct
21 Oct
12:48 a.m.
On 10/19/2010 06:57 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi devs,
I'd like to propose 3 things:
1) Add support for symbols/emoticons using our new system in XWiki Syntax 2.1, i.e.
image:symbol:<symbol name>
Another possibility is: image:icon:<icon name>
ex: image:symbol:success (for the success symbol)
+1 for icon.
2) Use the existing silk icon library and be able to
reference all icons using their file names as the symbol name.
For ex, image:symbol:thumb_up
+0, -1 for hard-coding silk. See my other mail about IconTheme.
3) Modify the Box macro to accept a ResourceReference
as its image parameter so that all valid image resource references can be specified
(including the new symbol/icon scheme).
+1
WDYT?
This will solve the emoticon/symbol need + the generic way of adding a box with any
symbol.
Open questions:
A) Do we need to handle icon size? If so, how? (answer: with an image parameter)
Not at the moment. Silk only comes in one size, and pixel art does not
scale well.
B) Do we want to expose all silk icons? What if we use
another library later on, will we be able to support all existing silk symbols? Thus, do
we need to pick a subset and settle on names independent from the underlying library?
I think it would be better to allow all icon names, with no guarantee of
availability. On top of that, we should define a set of standard names
that SHOULD be present in any icon theme.
For A) IMO we don't need it now and we can always
use an image param later on if need be.
For B) I'm tempted to think that a set of well-known symbols independent from the
underlying library is better (but more work since we need to define that set and the
names).
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
7:17 a.m.
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:48 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 10/19/2010 06:57 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Sounds good to me.
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi devs,
I'd like to propose 3 things:
1) Add support for symbols/emoticons using our new system in XWiki Syntax 2.1, i.e.
image:symbol:<symbol name>
Another possibility is: image:icon:<icon name>
ex: image:symbol:success (for the success symbol)
+1 for icon.
2) Use the existing silk icon library and be able
to reference all icons using their file names as the symbol name.
For ex, image:symbol:thumb_up
+0, -1 for hard-coding silk. See my other mail about IconTheme.
3) Modify the Box macro to accept a
ResourceReference as its image parameter so that all valid image resource references can
be specified (including the new symbol/icon scheme).
+1
WDYT?
This will solve the emoticon/symbol need + the generic way of adding a box with any
symbol.
Open questions:
A) Do we need to handle icon size? If so, how? (answer: with an image parameter)
Not at the moment. Silk only comes in one size, and pixel art does not
scale well.
B) Do we want to expose all silk icons? What if
we use another library later on, will we be able to support all existing silk symbols?
Thus, do we need to pick a subset and settle on names independent from the underlying
library?
I think it would be better to allow all icon names, with no guarantee of
availability. On top of that, we should define a set of standard names
that SHOULD be present in any icon theme.
> For A) IMO we don't need it now and we can always use an image param later on if
need be.
> For B) I'm tempted to think that a set of well-known symbols independent from the
underlying library is better (but more work since we need to define that set and the
names).
5132
days inactive
5134
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Jean-Vincent Drean -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol