Re: [xwiki-users] WIKI editor

On Feb 21, 2007, at 4:50 PM, F. Exertier wrote: there's no syntax for that apart from using <br/>. What syntax would you expect? One reason there's no syntax is that it won't be simpler than html... :) You can always create a velocity macro in yoru wiki, say {blankline} that internally outputs a <br/>.

I think the wysiwyg editor does support adding new lines.

Maybe there are some other solution but then we need to understand why you need to insert several blank lines. Thanks -Vincent > > F. Exertier wrote: > >> Hi Vincent, >> >> thanks for you quick answer. However the issue was not to insert >> a line break, but to insert a "blank line" (what I called "skip >> a line"), and the following does not work (with two blank lines): >> >> " >> My line 1. >> >> >> My line2. >> " >> I get the same result as you, a line break, but no blank line ... >> >> Thanks for your help, >> >> François >> >> Vincent Massol wrote: >> >>> Hi Francois, >>> >>> On Feb 20, 2007, at 2:41 PM, F. Exertier wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we are currently deploying xwiki within our company. We use >>>> the last stable version, the same as the one used by >>>> ObjectWeb (0.9xxx). In this version we are using the WIKI >>>> Editor (the wysiwyg one is not running), but we have the >>>> following issue: in order to skip a line (to insert some >>>> line breaks), it is necessary to insert some "<br\>" HTML >>>> statements or some "\\" characters in the content. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> XWiki recognizes a blank line as meaning a different >>> paragraph. So the following should work just fine: >>> >>> " >>> My line 1. >>> >>> My line2. >>> " >>> >>> The 2 lines should be displayed one under the other. However >>> the following: >>> >>> " >>> My line1. >>> My line2. >>> " >>> >>> Will be displayed on the same line when viewed. >>> >>> In summary a blank line is how xwiki recognizes a different >>> paragraph. >>> >>>> This is even not documented in the "help frame" on the right >>>> of the editor screen. This is a show stopper for us since >>>> we cannot ask our end users (people who will provide the >>>> content) to know this kind of syntax. Is there any turn >>>> around or any patch that could be used to cope with this >>>> issue ? We do not want to upgrade to the 1.0 beta version in >>>> a short term. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 1.0 betas would definitely help as the WYSIWYG editor is much >>> better in these versions and is the easiest to use for end users. >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >> >> > >