[xwiki-users] Extending XWiki collaboration toolset

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[xwiki-users] Help with links:...

[xwiki-users] Relative Heading...

coldserenity

17 Oct 2011 17 Oct '11

3:57 p.m.

Hello, Since XWiki is positioned as a collaboration tool, where collaboration is primarily on the documents, sooner or later there will emerge a need to provide functionality similar to what Google Docs has: simultaneous editing of documents, supporting text documents, spreadsheets (with ability to generate charts, calculating subtotals), presentations, embedding spreadsheet tables and charts into documents etc. - at least several times I found myself in a need to do manual table-based calculations and to simultaneously work on the document. One more possible improvement is support rich brainstorming sessions like in e.g. http://incubator.apache.org/projects/wave.html (integration?) So I was wondering, are there any plans for those directions? Regards, Roman -- View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6… Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Show replies by date

Eugen Colesnicov

17 Oct 17 Oct

7:45 p.m.

Hi! I am not a developer of XWiki, but I am using XWiki 2 years and your questions are closed to me. 1. Wave is a new project (as a apache open-source project). It is started as a Google Wave, after Google "forgot it" and Wave migrated to the apache incubator. As I know for now - Wave as a independent open-source project didn't realise yet in production - for this reason, developers of other platforms right now cannot be sure exactly of future API, future functionality and other things of Wave ... Discuss about integration with it can be started after Wave will be released in a production. 2. XWiki is not only a final user-product "from the box" - is a "base" of your possible product (application). And regarding to "collaboration" XWiki can give to users more and more. For example, as a small comparison with Google Wave: - In XWiki you can add "pages" - same in Wave you can add "waves" - In XWiki you can write any comments to this page and comments to the comments (tree organized). - In XWiki you can sent messages inside XWiki - In XWiki you can attach any files to this page and you can organize view content of this files using officeviewer macro, also existing pictire viewing and charts drawing ... - In XWiki you can add tasks to this page (exist special macro) - In XWiki you can connect this page to other pages (wiki, documentation, etc) - In XWiki you can construct personal dashboards and gadgets - Also existing light calculations. If you need more calculations - you can write own macro ... What else exists in Google Wave and don't exists in XWiki? I don't know ... (maybe another idea of interface). XWiki give you more - because you can add additional macros, add additional functionality (for example blogs, forums, etc). For this reason, I think, that XWiki is enought for colaboration. Difference from Google Wave - that you need to "construct" in XWiki you own "application". You can see examples of such applications: http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Chronopolys -- Best regards Eugen Colesnicov -- View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6… Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Roman Muntyanu

8:30 p.m.

Hello Eugen, Your points about Wave's codebase and APIs are valid. So is the abstraction analogy between XWiki and Wave. There is only one argument I can bring here: the UX of the Wave (in this particular case and because Wave is a specialized tool) is superior. However it's not the Wave I was trying to promote by this thread, it was just an example of advanced user interaction User-to-User and User-to-Wiki: advanced documents editing for most popular types of documents (text, spreadsheet, and presentation). I understand the complexity of this task (it took 20 years for Microsoft to build their MS Office), but the question is: I often consider whether to upload a MS Office file as an attachment or maintain the file's content as an XWiki page - and sooner or later someone will come up with such solution ( Open-source wiki + Open-Source Google Docs :) ). So it's not about writing some missing extension - it's about taking XWiki to the next level in terms of content editing. Roman -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces(a)xwiki.org [mailto:users-bounces@xwiki.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Colesnicov Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 20:46 PM To: users(a)xwiki.org Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Extending XWiki collaboration toolset Hi! I am not a developer of XWiki, but I am using XWiki 2 years and your questions are closed to me. 1. Wave is a new project (as a apache open-source project). It is started as a Google Wave, after Google "forgot it" and Wave migrated to the apache incubator. As I know for now - Wave as a independent open-source project didn't realise yet in production - for this reason, developers of other platforms right now cannot be sure exactly of future API, future functionality and other things of Wave ... Discuss about integration with it can be started after Wave will be released in a production. 2. XWiki is not only a final user-product "from the box" - is a "base" of your possible product (application). And regarding to "collaboration" XWiki can give to users more and more. For example, as a small comparison with Google Wave: - In XWiki you can add "pages" - same in Wave you can add "waves" - In XWiki you can write any comments to this page and comments to the comments (tree organized). - In XWiki you can sent messages inside XWiki - In XWiki you can attach any files to this page and you can organize view content of this files using officeviewer macro, also existing pictire viewing and charts drawing ... - In XWiki you can add tasks to this page (exist special macro) - In XWiki you can connect this page to other pages (wiki, documentation, etc) - In XWiki you can construct personal dashboards and gadgets - Also existing light calculations. If you need more calculations - you can write own macro ... What else exists in Google Wave and don't exists in XWiki? I don't know ... (maybe another idea of interface). XWiki give you more - because you can add additional macros, add additional functionality (for example blogs, forums, etc). For this reason, I think, that XWiki is enought for colaboration. Difference from Google Wave - that you need to "construct" in XWiki you own "application". You can see examples of such applications: http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Chronopolys -- Best regards Eugen Colesnicov -- View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6… Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Eugen Colesnicov

9:17 p.m.

coldserenity wrote:

...

... the UX of the Wave (in this particular case and because Wave is a specialized tool) is superior.

I am not agree with you. Good idea - but realisation - terrible! 1. Google used some special interface functions - they thinking, that these possibilities will be web-standarts - but they got a mistake. For this reason, Wave working quickly and without problems only on Google Chrome (only this browser supports all these non-standart functions). 2. Try Wave with Firefox at simple computer (netbook for example) - cannot work on big waves (hundred messages)!!! I press one button and waiting 3-5 secunds per each symbol. It is not problem of notebook - Windows 7, MS Office working great and quickly! 3. Too many errors on scripts - every 5 minutes I got error - script bla-bla-bla stopped! I have experience with Google Wave with big waves of hundreds waves - for this reason I known what I said. However it's not the Wave I was trying to promote by this thread, it was just an example of advanced user interaction User-to-User and User-to-Wiki: advanced documents editing for most popular types of documents (text, spreadsheet, and presentation). I understand the complexity of this task (it took 20 years for Microsoft to build their MS Office), but the question is: I often consider whether to upload a MS Office file as an attachment or maintain the file's content as an XWiki page - and sooner or later someone will come up with such solution ( Open-source wiki + Open-Source Google Docs :) ). So it's not about writing some missing extension - it's about taking XWiki to the next level in terms of content editing. Roman -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@ [mailto:users-bounces@] On Behalf Of Eugen Colesnicov Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 20:46 PM To: users@ Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Extending XWiki collaboration toolset Hi! I am not a developer of XWiki, but I am using XWiki 2 years and your questions are closed to me. 1. Wave is a new project (as a apache open-source project). It is started as a Google Wave, after Google "forgot it" and Wave migrated to the apache incubator. As I know for now - Wave as a independent open-source project didn't realise yet in production - for this reason, developers of other platforms right now cannot be sure exactly of future API, future functionality and other things of Wave ... Discuss about integration with it can be started after Wave will be released in a production. 2. XWiki is not only a final user-product "from the box" - is a "base" of your possible product (application). And regarding to "collaboration" XWiki can give to users more and more. For example, as a small comparison with Google Wave: - In XWiki you can add "pages" - same in Wave you can add "waves" - In XWiki you can write any comments to this page and comments to the comments (tree organized). - In XWiki you can sent messages inside XWiki - In XWiki you can attach any files to this page and you can organize view content of this files using officeviewer macro, also existing pictire viewing and charts drawing ... - In XWiki you can add tasks to this page (exist special macro) - In XWiki you can connect this page to other pages (wiki, documentation, etc) - In XWiki you can construct personal dashboards and gadgets - Also existing light calculations. If you need more calculations - you can write own macro ... What else exists in Google Wave and don't exists in XWiki? I don't know ... (maybe another idea of interface). XWiki give you more - because you can add additional macros, add additional functionality (for example blogs, forums, etc). For this reason, I think, that XWiki is enought for colaboration. Difference from Google Wave - that you need to "construct" in XWiki you own "application". You can see examples of such applications: http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Chronopolys -- Best regards Eugen Colesnicov -- View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6… Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@ http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@ http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users -- View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6… Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Guillaume Lerouge

18 Oct 18 Oct

11:30 a.m.

Hi, I think that this is an interesting and valid point. In the same way that users can get a preview of OOo-supported attached files right now, we could integrate use OOo's upcoming HTML5 version in XWiki (when it's ready). From this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/17/libreoffice_porting_ios_android_clo…: *The LibreOffice Online cloud software is built around HTML5 Canvas and the GTK+ framework with JavaScript shims, and was developed by SUSE's Michael Meeks and RedHat's Alex Laarson. It allows complex text layout, large spreadsheets, WYSIWYG editing, VBA macros, and pivot tables, with the server side taking almost the entire processor load.* So that would seem to answer your initial issue :-) You could upload a .odt file, edit it online from the wiki, save it and it would be viewable from the wiki or re-downloadable at will. Guillaume On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Eugen Colesnicov <ecolesnicov(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

coldserenity wrote:

... the UX of the Wave (in this particular case and because Wave is a specialized tool) is superior.

jerem

4:49 p.m.

On collaboration, but more an "enterprise" feature, I know a use-case for us would be to be able to do full round-tripping between DITA documents and XWiki markup. For now we could only found something for a concurrent wiki ... The idea would be to elaborate and model documents with DITA, use XWiki to publish them widely, allow end-users to perform comments/annotations on published documents. At best document writers could even update things directly in XWiki and revert back to DITA (don't know if it's possible). XWiki would be a good tool to do that in my opinion, with possibility to use objects to recreate DITA structures in wiki pages, and maybe use REST to grab modifications and revert back to DITA. Also I think an idea could be to propose something close to workspaces, but extended for documentation collaboration. For example create a workspace from a template, with pages for TOC generation, contributions summary, buttons to create new chapters/pages/toc pages, assign them to users (like todo tasks), pages for reporting on annotations/comments, links for PDF/ODT/WORD exports, statistics about number of words/sentences and evolution other days ... Last things could also be very simple "ergonomic" features, like adding the number of received messages in activity stream right to the "network" or "profile" link (in top-right corner), like is usually done in social networks UIs. -- View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6… Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Ludovic Dubost

5:26 p.m.

I'm not so positive about this. The technology behind the LibreOffice Online version is a bit tricky and it's not clear how it will work effectively. We should wait and see. Some thing for Wave, it's not clear how it will be developped in the future and it seems that the Google experience had shown that the way they mixed Inbox + Editing Documents + Chat was not the correct solution (beyond the real time technology in it). In any case integrating editors for advanced formats is definitively interesting and is something we should look at. We have the Resilience Research Project (starting in 2012) on which it is planned to work on Rich Web Editors. More on it will come before the end of the year. It will include work on Spreadsheet editors. If anybody knows of good Web based editors for popular formats that we should look at, tell us. As for real-time this is very interesting also. We have the Wiki 3.0 project (https://wiki30.xwikisas.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome in French) where XWiki SAS is doing some work with the INRIA LORIA on integrating real time in the Wysiwyg editor (with technologies similar to Wave). This is work in progress. I'd love to hear from our devs and users what they think we should have in this area ? Ludovic 2011/10/18 Guillaume Lerouge <guillaume(a)xwiki.com>

...

Hi, I think that this is an interesting and valid point. In the same way that users can get a preview of OOo-supported attached files right now, we could integrate use OOo's upcoming HTML5 version in XWiki (when it's ready). From this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/17/libreoffice_porting_ios_android_clo… : *The LibreOffice Online cloud software is built around HTML5 Canvas and the GTK+ framework with JavaScript shims, and was developed by SUSE's Michael Meeks and RedHat's Alex Laarson. It allows complex text layout, large spreadsheets, WYSIWYG editing, VBA macros, and pivot tables, with the server side taking almost the entire processor load.* So that would seem to answer your initial issue :-) You could upload a .odt file, edit it online from the wiki, save it and it would be viewable from the wiki or re-downloadable at will. Guillaume On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Eugen Colesnicov <ecolesnicov(a)gmail.com

wrote:

coldserenity wrote: > > ... the UX of the Wave (in this particular case and because Wave is

specialized tool) is superior.

I am not agree with you. Good idea - but realisation - terrible! 1. Google used some special interface functions - they thinking, that

these

possibilities will be web-standarts - but they got a mistake. For this reason, Wave working quickly and without problems only on Google Chrome (only this browser supports all these non-standart functions). 2. Try Wave with Firefox at simple computer (netbook for example) -

cannot

work on big waves (hundred messages)!!! I press one button and waiting

3-5

secunds per each symbol. It is not problem of notebook - Windows 7, MS Office working great and quickly! 3. Too many errors on scripts - every 5 minutes I got error - script bla-bla-bla stopped! I have experience with Google Wave with big waves of hundreds waves - for this reason I known what I said. However it's not the Wave I was trying to promote by this thread, it

was

just an example of advanced user interaction User-to-User and

User-to-Wiki:

advanced documents editing for most popular types of documents (text, spreadsheet, and presentation). I understand the complexity of this task (it took 20 years for Microsoft to build their MS Office), but the question

is:

I often consider whether to upload a MS Office file as an attachment or maintain the file's content as an XWiki page - and sooner or later

someone

will come up with such solution ( Open-source wiki + Open-Source Google Docs :) ). So it's not about writing some missing extension - it's about

taking

XWiki to the next level in terms of content editing. Roman -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@ [mailto:users-bounces@] On Behalf Of Eugen

Colesnicov

Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 20:46 PM To: users@ Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Extending XWiki collaboration toolset Hi! I am not a developer of XWiki, but I am using XWiki 2 years and your questions are closed to me. 1. Wave is a new project (as a apache open-source project). It is started as a Google Wave, after Google "forgot it" and Wave migrated to the apache incubator. As I know for now - Wave as a independent open-source project didn't realise yet in production - for this reason, developers of other platforms right now cannot be sure exactly of future API, future functionality and other things of Wave ... Discuss about integration with it can be started after Wave will be released in a production. 2. XWiki is not only a final user-product "from the box" - is a "base" of your possible product (application). And regarding to "collaboration"

XWiki

can give to users more and more. For example, as a small comparison with Google Wave: - In XWiki you can add "pages" - same in Wave you can add "waves" - In XWiki you can write any comments to this page and comments to the comments (tree organized). - In XWiki you can sent messages inside XWiki - In XWiki you can attach any files to this page and you can organize

view

content of this files using officeviewer macro, also existing pictire viewing and charts drawing ... - In XWiki you can add tasks to this page (exist special macro) - In XWiki you can connect this page to other pages (wiki, documentation, etc) - In XWiki you can construct personal dashboards and gadgets - Also existing light calculations. If you need more calculations - you

can

write own macro ... What else exists in Google Wave and don't exists in XWiki? I don't know

...

(maybe another idea of interface). XWiki give you more - because you can add additional macros, add additional functionality (for example blogs,

forums,

etc). For this reason, I think, that XWiki is enought for colaboration. Difference from Google Wave - that you need to "construct" in XWiki you

own

"application". You can see examples of such applications: http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Chronopolys -- Best regards Eugen Colesnicov -- View this message in context:

http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6…

Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@ http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@ http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users -- View this message in context:

http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6…

Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost

Ludovic Dubost

5:30 p.m.

2011/10/18 jerem <jeremie.bousquet(a)gmail.com>

...

I've heard of DITA in the past. What I'm not sure to understand is what is the benefit of supporting DITA. How do you actually model documents with DITA and suppose you are round tripping back to DITA from XWiki, what do you actually do with the output ? Ludovic

...

Also I think an idea could be to propose something close to workspaces, but extended for documentation collaboration. For example create a workspace from a template, with pages for TOC generation, contributions summary, buttons to create new chapters/pages/toc pages, assign them to users (like todo tasks), pages for reporting on annotations/comments, links for PDF/ODT/WORD exports, statistics about number of words/sentences and evolution other days ... Last things could also be very simple "ergonomic" features, like adding the number of received messages in activity stream right to the "network" or "profile" link (in top-right corner), like is usually done in social networks UIs. -- View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6… Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost

Eugen Colesnicov

7:51 p.m.

Ludovic Dubost wrote:

...

... it seems that the Google experience had shown that the way they mixed Inbox + Editing Documents + Chat was not the correct solution (beyond the real time technology in it). ...

Excuse me Ludovic! This moment is so interesting for me. Can you give some more explanations: why "mixed Inbox + Editing Documents + Chat was not the correct solution"? whats the problems in this method? How this way corresponding with conception of "web 2.0" or "web 3.0"? Thanks beforehand! Eugen Colesnicov -- View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6… Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Ludovic Dubost

7:57 p.m.

Google Wave was having a "mail like" interface which then leaded to a "wave". The "wave" was both a document and a chat.

...

From my point of view, while the real time capabilities are really

interesting this is not the right solution: 1/ Managing content is not like reading email. So if your tool is the place where content should be then you need to give some better tools to organize the content than the concept of the individual mailbox. This is were a wiki works better 2/ Mixing both the document and the chat in the same vertical UI is also for me wrong. You need to be able to identify what is the document itself and what is the chat. This is were annotations (with threaded) is better. So from my point of view the real time in Google Wave is very interesting. The UI organization of the information is not so good. It looks fun in the beginning because the "chat" part works well. It doesn't work in the long run because your content is not well organized and identified.

...

From the XWiki point of view, we need to take from that experiment:

1/ the technical aspect of google wave underlying the UI 2/ the real time aspects 3/ the chat/discussion part Ludovic 2011/10/18 Eugen Colesnicov <ecolesnicov(a)gmail.com>

...

Ludovic Dubost wrote:

... it seems that the Google experience had shown that the way they mixed Inbox + Editing Documents + Chat was not the correct solution (beyond the real time technology in it). ...

-- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost

jerem

19 Oct 19 Oct

10:14 a.m.

...

You model by creating documents parts as XML files (fragments, concepts in dita world), and you can aggregate them to form a document by creating a dita map file, basically a summary referencing all needed fragments. You generate final document (pdf, rtf, xml, whatever) through a build process (ant or maven) from the sources (xml/ditamap/images/...). Fragments content "looks like" XHTML but with dita specific tags (<fig>, <note> ...). For us it's quite useful as we can easily define parts that are reused among documents (terminology, contacts ...) without heavy copy/paste, and integrate the documentation in overall build process. It's a bit like a maven site, but greatly more sophisticated and adapted to projects technical documents output. Our use-case for integrating XWiki in the loop is because the people targeted by these documents have no easy possibility to : - view final documents "online" - add their own comments to documents before they are delivered (in an easier way than bug tracking on documents ...) Publication to XWiki would solve this issue... Reverting back modifications from XWiki to DITA format would add more collaboration by letting "end users" propose modifications even if they don't know much about dita. Well I realize it's a bit out-of-scope of this thread, because dita is not what we could call "popular". But if I investigate more on this subject I'll open a new thread (if you're interested of course). -- View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6… Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Ludovic Dubost

11:42 a.m.

I've tried looking at a DITA document: http://dita2indesign.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/dita2indesign/trunk/dita_gu… I'm not sure it's a good example of a DITA document. The only specific tag I can see is the "<ph>" tag. It seems you should be able to convert a DITA document to XWiki syntax with macros. This would probably be best done by a DITA -> XDOM converter with a list of DITA tags that need to be converted to macros. Maybe some of the macro content could be stored in XWiki objects to help navigating the meta data. Also a DITA class could be added to give the info that is in the ditamap which lists all documents part of it. The complexity here all depends on how many DITA specific tag you would like to support. Ludovic Do you have an example of a DITA document. 2011/10/19 jerem <jeremie.bousquet(a)gmail.com>

...

I've heard of DITA in the past. What I'm not sure to understand is what

the benefit of supporting DITA. How do you actually model documents with DITA and suppose you are round tripping back to DITA from XWiki, what do you actually do with the output ?

-- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost

jerem

3:14 p.m.

...

Do you have an example of a DITA document.

I have some we use here, but if I strip any confidential info from them only the tags will remain :D I found something more exhaustive from the specs (1.0) about what can be put in the body of a topic: http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.0/langspec/body.html The "contains" part gives a good idea of the tags that can be managed. Of course the complete dita spec contains much more tags. Macros are a good idea but maybe problem is that (as far as I remember) you cannot annotate the content of a macro (can you ?). Well, I believe I'd need to think about it. -- View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6… Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Ludovic Dubost

3:34 p.m.

DITA seems very rich in terms of tags. What I also find a bit complex is that it looks like HTML, it uses some HTML tags, but it does not seem fully html compliant. I think macros could work but probably only for a subset of tags. Using macros you can do {{macroname param1="param1value" param2="param2value" param3="param3value"}}content that can have more macros{{/macroname}} There is quite a lot that can be done with the params. It is possible to have close to anything in the param values. As for annotations, maybe Anca can help about what can receive annotation and what not. Ludovic 2011/10/19 jerem <jeremie.bousquet(a)gmail.com>

...

Do you have an example of a DITA document.

-- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost

Roman Muntyanu

29 Nov 29 Nov

10:44 p.m.

Hello Ludovic, It took me a month to gather all of the material in one place, so sorry for delay with the reply :) I've prepared a presentation describing my vision of how collaboration wikis will change in next few decades http://prezi.com/nymm70tfdird/next-gen-collaboration-wikis/ Hope that effort was not in vain, and you will find something useful that will help to make XWiki better. Regards, Roman -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces(a)xwiki.org [mailto:users-bounces@xwiki.org] On Behalf Of Ludovic Dubost Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 18:27 PM To: XWiki Users Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Extending XWiki collaboration toolset I'm not so positive about this. The technology behind the LibreOffice Online version is a bit tricky and it's not clear how it will work effectively. We should wait and see. Some thing for Wave, it's not clear how it will be developped in the future and it seems that the Google experience had shown that the way they mixed Inbox + Editing Documents + Chat was not the correct solution (beyond the real time technology in it). In any case integrating editors for advanced formats is definitively interesting and is something we should look at. We have the Resilience Research Project (starting in 2012) on which it is planned to work on Rich Web Editors. More on it will come before the end of the year. It will include work on Spreadsheet editors. If anybody knows of good Web based editors for popular formats that we should look at, tell us. As for real-time this is very interesting also. We have the Wiki 3.0 project (https://wiki30.xwikisas.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome in French) where XWiki SAS is doing some work with the INRIA LORIA on integrating real time in the Wysiwyg editor (with technologies similar to Wave). This is work in progress. I'd love to hear from our devs and users what they think we should have in this area ? Ludovic 2011/10/18 Guillaume Lerouge <guillaume(a)xwiki.com>

...

Hi, I think that this is an interesting and valid point. In the same way that users can get a preview of OOo-supported attached files right now, we could integrate use OOo's upcoming HTML5 version in XWiki (when it's ready). From this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/17/libreoffice_porting_ios_androi d_cloud/ : *The LibreOffice Online cloud software is built around HTML5 Canvas and the GTK+ framework with JavaScript shims, and was developed by SUSE's GTK+ Michael Meeks and RedHat's Alex Laarson. It allows complex text layout, large spreadsheets, WYSIWYG editing, VBA macros, and pivot tables, with the server side taking almost the entire processor load.* So that would seem to answer your initial issue :-) You could upload a .odt file, edit it online from the wiki, save it and it would be viewable from the wiki or re-downloadable at will. Guillaume On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Eugen Colesnicov <ecolesnicov(a)gmail.com

wrote:

coldserenity wrote: > > ... the UX of the Wave (in this particular case and because > Wave is

specialized tool) is superior.

I am not agree with you. Good idea - but realisation - terrible! 1. Google used some special interface functions - they thinking, that

these

cannot

work on big waves (hundred messages)!!! I press one button and waiting

3-5

was

just an example of advanced user interaction User-to-User and

User-to-Wiki:

is:

I often consider whether to upload a MS Office file as an attachment or maintain the file's content as an XWiki page - and sooner or later

someone

will come up with such solution ( Open-source wiki + Open-Source Google Docs :) ). So it's not about writing some missing extension - it's about

taking

XWiki to the next level in terms of content editing. Roman -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@ [mailto:users-bounces@] On Behalf Of Eugen

Colesnicov

XWiki

view

can

write own macro ... What else exists in Google Wave and don't exists in XWiki? I don't know

...

(maybe another idea of interface). XWiki give you more - because you can add additional macros, add additional functionality (for example blogs,

forums,

etc). For this reason, I think, that XWiki is enought for colaboration. Difference from Google Wave - that you need to "construct" in XWiki you

own

"application". You can see examples of such applications: http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Chronopolys -- Best regards Eugen Colesnicov -- View this message in context:

http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolse t-tp6900649p6901630.html

http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolse t-tp6900649p6902014.html

Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Ludovic Dubost

30 Nov 30 Nov

10:22 a.m.

I'll check it out. Thanks a lot for this effort Ludovic 2011/11/29 Roman Muntyanu <rmuntyan(a)softserveinc.com>

...

Hi, I think that this is an interesting and valid point. In the same way that users can get a preview of OOo-supported attached files right now, we could integrate use OOo's upcoming HTML5 version in XWiki (when it's ready). From this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/17/libreoffice_porting_ios_androi d_cloud/ : *The LibreOffice Online cloud software is built around HTML5 Canvas and the GTK+ framework with JavaScript shims, and was developed by SUSE's GTK+ Michael Meeks and RedHat's Alex Laarson. It allows complex text layout, large spreadsheets, WYSIWYG editing, VBA macros, and pivot tables, with the server side taking almost the entire processor load.* So that would seem to answer your initial issue :-) You could upload a .odt file, edit it online from the wiki, save it and it would be viewable from the wiki or re-downloadable at will. Guillaume On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Eugen Colesnicov <ecolesnicov(a)gmail.com

wrote:

coldserenity wrote: > > ... the UX of the Wave (in this particular case and because > Wave is

specialized tool) is superior.

I am not agree with you. Good idea - but realisation - terrible! 1. Google used some special interface functions - they thinking, that

these > possibilities will be web-standarts - but they got a mistake. For > this reason, Wave working quickly and without problems only on > Google Chrome (only this browser supports all these non-standart

functions).

2. Try Wave with Firefox at simple computer (netbook for example) -

cannot

work on big waves (hundred messages)!!! I press one button and waiting

3-5

was

just an example of advanced user interaction User-to-User and

User-to-Wiki:

is:

I often consider whether to upload a MS Office file as an attachment or maintain the file's content as an XWiki page - and sooner or later

someone

will come up with such solution ( Open-source wiki + Open-Source Google Docs :) ). So it's not about writing some missing extension - it's about

taking

XWiki to the next level in terms of content editing. Roman -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@ [mailto:users-bounces@] On Behalf Of Eugen

Colesnicov > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 20:46 PM > To: users@ > Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Extending XWiki collaboration toolset > > Hi! I am not a developer of XWiki, but I am using XWiki 2 years and > your questions are closed to me. > > 1. Wave is a new project (as a apache open-source project). It is > started as a Google Wave, after Google "forgot it" and Wave migrated > to the apache incubator. As I know for now - Wave as a independent > open-source project didn't realise yet in production - for this > reason, developers of other platforms right now cannot be sure > exactly of future API, future functionality and other things of Wave > ... Discuss about integration with it can be started after Wave will > be released in a production. > > 2. XWiki is not only a final user-product "from the box" - is a > "base" of your possible product (application). And regarding to

"collaboration"

XWiki

view

can

write own macro ... What else exists in Google Wave and don't exists in XWiki? I don't know

...

(maybe another idea of interface). XWiki give you more - because you can add additional macros, add additional functionality (for example blogs,

forums,

etc). For this reason, I think, that XWiki is enought for colaboration. Difference from Google Wave - that you need to "construct" in XWiki you

own

"application". You can see examples of such applications: http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Chronopolys -- Best regards Eugen Colesnicov -- View this message in context:

http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolse t-tp6900649p6901630.html

http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolse t-tp6900649p6902014.html

Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost

Eduard Moraru

1:49 p.m.

Hi Roman, I admit I have read your presentation in fast-forward, but I noticed you mentioned content (photo, text, audio and video) analysis. Not sure if you know about it, but maybe you could be interested in Scribo [1][2][3]. It's an open source framework, developed as research project by XWiki SAS and partners, that focuses on knowledge extraction from unstructured content. It was finished at the beginning of 2011 and an XWiki integration [1, minute 10:16] also exists. The integration could use some minor updating but, eventually, it should end up on extensions.xwiki.org. If you are interested, we could use some help in brushing it up and finding some relevant annotators to wrap or just plug in that would enrich the XWiki experience. Hope this was useful. Thanks, Eduard References: ----------------- [1] Video Demo: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe1tk3_scribo-framework-and-integrations-d… [2] Project website: http://www.scribo.ws [3] Code : https://bitbucket.org/fmancinelli/scribo/ On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Roman Muntyanu <rmuntyan(a)softserveinc.com>wrote;wrote:

...

Hi, I think that this is an interesting and valid point. In the same way that users can get a preview of OOo-supported attached files right now, we could integrate use OOo's upcoming HTML5 version in XWiki (when it's ready). From this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/17/libreoffice_porting_ios_androi d_cloud/ : *The LibreOffice Online cloud software is built around HTML5 Canvas and the GTK+ framework with JavaScript shims, and was developed by SUSE's GTK+ Michael Meeks and RedHat's Alex Laarson. It allows complex text layout, large spreadsheets, WYSIWYG editing, VBA macros, and pivot tables, with the server side taking almost the entire processor load.* So that would seem to answer your initial issue :-) You could upload a .odt file, edit it online from the wiki, save it and it would be viewable from the wiki or re-downloadable at will. Guillaume On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Eugen Colesnicov <ecolesnicov(a)gmail.com

wrote:

coldserenity wrote: > > ... the UX of the Wave (in this particular case and because > Wave is

specialized tool) is superior.

I am not agree with you. Good idea - but realisation - terrible! 1. Google used some special interface functions - they thinking, that

functions).

2. Try Wave with Firefox at simple computer (netbook for example) -

cannot

work on big waves (hundred messages)!!! I press one button and waiting

3-5

was

just an example of advanced user interaction User-to-User and

User-to-Wiki:

is:

I often consider whether to upload a MS Office file as an attachment or maintain the file's content as an XWiki page - and sooner or later

someone

will come up with such solution ( Open-source wiki + Open-Source Google Docs :) ). So it's not about writing some missing extension - it's about

taking

XWiki to the next level in terms of content editing. Roman -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@ [mailto:users-bounces@] On Behalf Of Eugen

"collaboration"

XWiki

view

can

write own macro ... What else exists in Google Wave and don't exists in XWiki? I don't know

...

(maybe another idea of interface). XWiki give you more - because you can add additional macros, add additional functionality (for example blogs,

forums,

etc). For this reason, I think, that XWiki is enought for colaboration. Difference from Google Wave - that you need to "construct" in XWiki you

own

"application". You can see examples of such applications: http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Chronopolys -- Best regards Eugen Colesnicov -- View this message in context:

http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolse t-tp6900649p6901630.html

http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolse t-tp6900649p6902014.html

Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Roman Muntyanu

2 Dec 2 Dec

5:10 p.m.

Hi Eduard, Thanks for the input! I never knew that such tools existed :) that is a great addition to wikis - being able to identify "what" the content is and automagically cross-link the content. One remark though - the information must exist before this tool can be applied :) E.g. for past 2 years of constant usage our wiki counts only ~650 documents (this is for 7 projects). The information there is well-structured ... or at least full-text-searchable. However. We keep our technical designs, WBSs and diagrams outside wiki, as separate documents updated by different tools like MS Office, Visio, Gliffy etc - simply because they provide a richer set of functionality and greater productivity because of being purpose-specific. I'm not mentioning all information that is kept in emais, skype logs and the one that's usually lost each time we ended a Skype or a conference call. That means currently for my projects it's more important to be provisioned with tools which would bloat the wiki content generation. Regards, Roman PS: Maybe if I get enough enthusiasm and time I'll even try to create a Named Entity Recognizer to work with our business domain - to be able to provide richer and better cross-linked wiki pages to future newbies of our projects. When that day comes - I will know whom to contact for questions ;) -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces(a)xwiki.org [mailto:users-bounces@xwiki.org] On Behalf Of Eduard Moraru Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 14:50 PM To: XWiki Users Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Extending XWiki collaboration toolset Hi Roman, I admit I have read your presentation in fast-forward, but I noticed you mentioned content (photo, text, audio and video) analysis. Not sure if you know about it, but maybe you could be interested in Scribo [1][2][3]. It's an open source framework, developed as research project by XWiki SAS and partners, that focuses on knowledge extraction from unstructured content. It was finished at the beginning of 2011 and an XWiki integration [1, minute 10:16] also exists. The integration could use some minor updating but, eventually, it should end up on extensions.xwiki.org. If you are interested, we could use some help in brushing it up and finding some relevant annotators to wrap or just plug in that would enrich the XWiki experience. Hope this was useful. Thanks, Eduard References: ----------------- [1] Video Demo: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe1tk3_scribo-framework-and-integrations-d… [2] Project website: http://www.scribo.ws [3] Code : https://bitbucket.org/fmancinelli/scribo/ On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Roman Muntyanu <rmuntyan(a)softserveinc.com>wrote;wrote:

...

Hi, I think that this is an interesting and valid point. In the same way that users can get a preview of OOo-supported attached files right now, we could integrate use OOo's upcoming HTML5 version in XWiki (when it's ready). From this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/17/libreoffice_porting_ios_andr oi d_cloud/ : *The LibreOffice Online cloud software is built around HTML5 Canvas and the GTK+ framework with JavaScript shims, and was developed by SUSE's GTK+ Michael Meeks and RedHat's Alex Laarson. It allows complex text layout, large spreadsheets, WYSIWYG editing, VBA macros, and pivot tables, with the server side taking almost the entire processor load.* So that would seem to answer your initial issue :-) You could upload a .odt file, edit it online from the wiki, save it and it would be viewable from the wiki or re-downloadable at will. Guillaume On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Eugen Colesnicov <ecolesnicov(a)gmail.com

wrote:

coldserenity wrote: > > ... the UX of the Wave (in this particular case and because > Wave is

specialized tool) is superior.

I am not agree with you. Good idea - but realisation - terrible! 1. Google used some special interface functions - they thinking, that

functions).

2. Try Wave with Firefox at simple computer (netbook for example) -

cannot

work on big waves (hundred messages)!!! I press one button and waiting

3-5

was

just an example of advanced user interaction User-to-User and

User-to-Wiki:

is:

I often consider whether to upload a MS Office file as an attachment or maintain the file's content as an XWiki page - and sooner or later

someone

will come up with such solution ( Open-source wiki + Open-Source Google Docs :) ). So it's not about writing some missing extension - it's about

taking

XWiki to the next level in terms of content editing. Roman -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@ [mailto:users-bounces@] On Behalf Of Eugen

Colesnicov > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 20:46 PM > To: users@ > Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Extending XWiki collaboration toolset > > Hi! I am not a developer of XWiki, but I am using XWiki 2 years > and your questions are closed to me. > > 1. Wave is a new project (as a apache open-source project). It is > started as a Google Wave, after Google "forgot it" and Wave > migrated to the apache incubator. As I know for now - Wave as a > independent open-source project didn't realise yet in production - > for this reason, developers of other platforms right now cannot be > sure exactly of future API, future functionality and other things > of Wave ... Discuss about integration with it can be started after > Wave will be released in a production. > > 2. XWiki is not only a final user-product "from the box" - is a > "base" of your possible product (application). And regarding to

"collaboration"

XWiki

view

can

write own macro ... What else exists in Google Wave and don't exists in XWiki? I don't know

...

(maybe another idea of interface). XWiki give you more - because you can add additional macros, add additional functionality (for example blogs,

forums,

etc). For this reason, I think, that XWiki is enought for colaboration. Difference from Google Wave - that you need to "construct" in XWiki you

own

"application". You can see examples of such applications: http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Chronopolys -- Best regards Eugen Colesnicov -- View this message in context:

http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-tool se t-tp6900649p6901630.html

http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-tool se t-tp6900649p6902014.html

Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

coldserenity

30 Dec 30 Dec

10:44 p.m.

Found this diagramming tool http://pencil.evolus.vn/en-US/Home.aspx Keywords: OpenSource, Diagramming :) Might be worth checking for integration into XWiki, probably as an extension app because the source code is under GPLv2 (which makes me once more observe that modular structure of XWiki allows great flexibility - even with licenses). -- View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6… Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Ludovic Dubost

2 Jan 2 Jan

1:27 a.m.

Hi Pencil sounds good but is not web based. there is svg-edit for which I did the SVG Macro http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/SVG+Macro It needs to be updated to the latest svg-edit code (current version based on svg-edit 2.4 supports FF only I think) Ludovic 2011/12/30 coldserenity <rmuntyan(a)softserveinc.com>

...

-- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost

4641

days inactive

4718

days old

xwiki-users@xwiki.org

Manage subscription

19 comments

7 participants

tags (0)

participants (7)

coldserenity
Eduard Moraru
Eugen Colesnicov
Guillaume Lerouge
jerem
Ludovic Dubost
Roman Muntyanu