New subject: [xwiki-users] [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Rights Management UI

3 Jun 2010

Hi Denis,

I want to thank you again for all the help you are giving :P

Please take a look at a proposal for "V3 and my 3)" version with elements
from Rights2 :)
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Proposal
and in "action"
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Space

The prototype is not reflecting the "desired" interaction: both inherited
info and rights change appear on hover (right icon and arrow), instead of
hover | click.

That "v" needs to be an arrow like the one we use in the action menus.

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 19:06, Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; wrote:

...
  Caty,

 Really nice and interesting post, I will try to reach that level... but
 without visual :\

 I really think that using the collapsed view for editing would helps basic
 users to have a simplified and more easy interface to understand. We may
 even imagine that only "advanced user" (those marked so in their profile),
 has access to the expanded view.

 I think that the collapsed view missed an additional icon that summarize
 the
 rights that are not shown. This one would only be shown if there is any
 non-defaulted additional right in action. 
This is a signal that extended
...
  rights are in use (See it like the grey box of Windows
when special rights
 are setup, which is inviting to go into advanced view to know more). This
 one would be obviously not editable, and should probably work like the ...
 or replace it ? In place of the ... . Concerning the ..., I am not sure,
 but
 I would also prefer to see a textual link "advanced" in small font, and
 only
 visible when row is hovered.

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Proposal#H…

...
  Order of right are not significant, so I would prefer
that in all view,
 these where in the same order, with the basic right first (V/C/E/D/A/P) and
 the additional right in their order of registration (hope that it will stay
 constant... or we will have to find a way to keep them ordered).
 The "right" part of each icon should be grayed if the right is inherited
 and
 not grayed if the right is set locally, this improve the information
 provided in V3. 

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Proposal#H…

The problem with this icons (taken from Silk) is that there is little
difference for View, Comment, Admin icons between the two states (inherited,
locally set) - but this is something we can easily improve (by changing the
icons and looking for some more contrast).
Example: This is how they look when all rights are set locally (full color)
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights43Propos…

...
  I also think that the +/- (which is never grayed)
could be
 nearer to the right icon. Maybe you could use a green V and a read "stop"
 in
 place of +/- ?

The other mockup versions (like
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights41Space) used
v/x for the allow/deny representation, and yes, I agree that they are more
suited than +/-.

The problem is that we are using in XWiki, X to represent delete, so having
two xX was too much, that's why I introduced +/-. Maybe we can find another
solution.

...

 Regarding the collapsed view, I see three possibilities to investigate for
 allowing edition while improving readability (note that readability has the
 same issue in expanded view, but it seems to be less annoying) :

 1) use V3, but when hovering a row, use V2 on that row and allow drag/drop
 (keeping V2 until drop even is hover is temporary lost). Not sure this will
 be nice in practice ? see 2)

 2) use a presentation in 4 columns, for both collapsed and expanded view,
 the first column behing a read-only summary like V3, and the 3 column being
 an ordered V1. However, dragging from summary would be allowed. The 3
 detailed column could be shown only when a drag is started from summary, or
 with a global horizontal expansion button... Basic user would have access
 to
 this, but not necessarily to vertical row expansion. Not sure this is not
 an
 increase in complexity ? so, see 3)

 3) use V3, and a similar interface to what we have in current right
 management interface. Since saved are postponed (not like we have
 currently), using this one may be both practical and could helps the
 transition for existing user as well. With all the belts and whistle added
 to clearly state changes and inheritance, this will be similar but really
 better than what we have.

 If we go for V3 and my 3) proposal, I also wonder if the current table
 header is well done. I do not like it when nothing is expanded since it is
 confusing, too large, and not significant. It will be even more unexpected
 if you follow me on the "advance user" case, when a basic user look at it.
 Maybe you could try a changing header, only expanding when there is
 expanded
 row, or, you could move the expanded header in each expanded row, keeping a
 simplified header at the top.

 WDYT ?

 Denis

 Other problem that this proposal has is the representation of "advanced
rights". If we don't like the textual description and we want to add icons,
IMO we have two solutions:

A) use the same abstract icon, but with different color, ex. a key or lock
icon with color representation ("blue" for "programming",
"green" for
"captchaComment", etc)
- the problem here is for the people that have some kind color blindness and
will not distinguish between some color tones (this is the case when we
gonna have lots of "advanced" | non default rights)

B) use the same abstract icon and with an order index (like numbers 1, 2,
etc or characters A, B, etc)

These representations are based on the fact that "advanced rights" will be
added by other developers and the icon will not be custom made for a specif
right.

Another thing we need to consider for this proposal is how the filtering is
gonna be made.

...

 On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:54, Ecaterina Valica &lt;valicac(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

  On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:03, Denis Gervalle
&lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; wrote:

  Caty,

 I probably have an issue with my browser (Chrome/Mac) but I cannot see  the
  icons :(

 Fixed: thanks.

 Made some screenshots with how it suppose to look like:
 - Wiki:

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…
  - Space:

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…

  Anyway this seem to me nice, but I am not sure
you should prevent  changing
  rights in summary mode. I think that summary mode
should allow simple  right
 > management, and for 'casual' or less knowledgeable users, this should 
be
   the
 only mode used. This is not only a summary, but also a simplified
 interface.

 WDYT ?

 I had your vision (changing rights in summary mode) in mind when I  started
  prototyping. Let me show you some versions:

 V1_space) First version took the exact order from the extended view  (first
  Allow, second Deny rights)

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…

 +   this version lets the user drag its right to the appropriate column
 +-  has the same representation as the extended version
 ---  there is no scanability: if I want to see the status of "delete" 
right
  for different groups/users I have to search for
them (making me dizzy :P  )
  +   there is no gapping space between rights

 V2_space) Tried to fix the dizziness by providing same order/position for
 rights

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…
  +-   this version lets the user drag its right to
the appropriate column,
 but the user has not control over the position he choose to drop the
 target:
 the right will appear on the column it's suppose to be
 +-  doesn't have the same representation as the extended version
 (allowed/denied order broke, determined order present)
 +   scanability: it's easy to scan for the searched column/position
 -    gap space between rights: ex. evalica-DenyDelete: some users might  not
  like that gap and may not understand why is there
(is it a bug?)

 See also:
 V2_wiki)

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…
  V2_wiki_expanded)

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…

 As you see in V2) has the same functionality as the expanded version.
 The main benefit is that is occupying less space, but we still need the
 expanded view for the Inherited/detailed information for each right.

 The down side of version 2

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…
  is that if I want to *summarize *a global state
for a given right (ex see
 for what users 'delete' is allowed/denied) at a global level, not at a
 group/user level, the same dizziness effect appears (I have to search for
 'delete' right in three columns, for all the users)

 V3) is the current proposal, it compresses the 3 column spread  information
  in one view.

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…
  -   this version doesn't lets the user drag
its right to the appropriate
 column
 +-  doesn't have the same representation as the extended version
 +   scanability: it's easy to scan for the searched column/position at a  *
  global* level
 +   there is no gapping space between rights

 V3_wiki)

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…
  is equivalent to
 V2_wiki)

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…

 I prefer V3) over V2):
 +   Summary does what is suppose to: give a global summary of existing
 rights, without being concerned of the type of the right (inherited,
 locally
 allowed, locally denied)
 +   Good Readability
 +/- Doesn't allow rights to be dragged around. I prefer changing rights  in
  expanded mode because there you also have more
information, like source  of
  the inheritance + 3 columns.

 Being compact it's easier to understand the "local source of inheritance"
 for a given right. For example, allowing "view" right for 'evalica'
will
 deny it for 'unregistered users' and 'registered users'. Being on the
 same
  column is easier to look for the change and see
it in action (being
 highlighted).

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…

 Please tell me what you think about this rationale. It would be great if
 you
 have ideas about how to make the summary being draggable, but also  keeping
  scanability and less gaps.

 Thanks,
 Caty

  Denis

 On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 16:54, Ecaterina Valica &lt;valicac(a)gmail.com&gt;  wrote:

  On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 17:53, Ecaterina Valica
&lt;valicac(a)gmail.com&gt;  wrote:
 >
 > > Hi,
 > >
 > > Summary Icons for standard rights:
 > >
 > > *Space Level:*
 > > 
 http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights42Space
 > > > *Wiki Level*:
 > > >
 > 
 http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Proposal
  > > >
 > >
 > > Sorry: link for Wiki is
 > > 
 http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights42Wiki

 >
 > Bug:
 > - when clicking on "more" next to the summary, all columns should 
expand,
 > > not just one column at a time.
 > >
 > > Missing:
 > > - expand/collapse all + pagination, etc
 > >
 > > Remarks:
 > > - Summary view is good for quick scanning of the rights. Rights
 > management
 > > (changing) and inheritance explanations are available in expanded  view.
 > > > - Icons presented just for: view, comment, edit, delete, admin,
 > register,
 > > > programming. Extended rights|Expand mode are represented by
"..."
 > (more)
 > > >
 > > > Thanks,
 > > > Caty
 > > >
 > > >
 > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:26, Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; 
wrote:
  > > >
 > > >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:57, Ecaterina Valica < 
valicac(a)gmail.com&gt;
   >
>> wrote:
 > >>
 > >> > Hi,
 > >> >
 > >> > I want to talk a bit about:
 > >> >
 > >> > > The inheritance is a little bit particular, since allowing a
 given
 > > >> right
 > > >> > at
 > > >> > > lower level, will deny that same right for anybody else even
 if
  > this
 > > >> > right
 > > >> > > is allowed at a higher level.
 > > >> > >
 > > >> >
 > > >> > I want to know how hard this would be to be changed.
 > > >> >
 > > >>
 > > >> Changing this is not hard, but it will increase complexity since
 we
  > will
 > > >> need a backward compatibility mode for existing wikis.
 > > >>
 > > >>
 > > >> > Another question is why this has been done in the first place?
 Can
   >
>> someone
 > >> > give a valid use case when this is more productive than other 
ways.
  > >> >
 > >>
 > >> I really do not know, and I am curious as well.
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> > It is very confusing and users need to do additional steps in 
order
  to
 > >> give
 > >> > the rights they want.
 > >> >
 > >>
 > >> I completely agree, this is poor.
 > >>
 > >> I think is a problem of how the Groups are perceived. Only as a 
rights
 > > >> > mechanism or as a semantically grouping.
 > > >> >
 > > >>
 > > >> We should not decide this, since groups maybe synchronized from
 > external
 > > >> system (ie LDAP), imposing groups for rights is not correct. By 
the
  > way,
 > > >> groups may contains groups, but I am almost sure that this will 
work
   >
>> properly in practice.
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> > If we use groups just to give rights than the current 
implementation
 > > is
 > > >> > usable. But if you have groups, like Tech team, Design team,
 > > Marketing,
 > > >> > Happy team ... etc in order to classify our users in other ways
 > beside
 > > >> > rights management, giving permission to a user is breaking all
 the
  > > >> > inheritance from upper
levels.
 > > >> >
 > > >> >  Example:
 > > >> > Group A(Managers) has View (default allowed) at wiki level -
 this
  > > means
 > > >> > that
 > > >> > they should be allowed to view all the pages in the wiki.
 > > >> > Group B(Tech Team) has View (explicitly denied) at spaceX level
 -
  > this
 > > >> > means
 > > >> > they shouldn't be allowed to view this space.
 > > >> >
 > > >> > But I have a person (the managerX) in Group B that is supposed
 to
   see
 > >> the
 > >> > info in spaceX level. So the first logical move would be to give
 him
 > > >> allow
 > > >> > at space level (having in mind that space rights are stronger
 that
  > > wiki
 > > >> > rights and the view right has been overriden). But, if I give
 > managerX
 > > >> view
 > > >> > right, all the other groups (incluing Managers) will be denied
 for
  > > >> spaceX
 > > >> > level. This means I need to know that and "repair"
again all the
 > > rights
 > > >> I
 > > >> > ALREADY set at the higher level.
 > > >> >
 > > >> > This behavior is not logical for me.
 > > >> >
 > > >>
 > > >> It is not logical for me and I imagine many others !
 > > >>
 > > >>
 > > >> >
 > > >> > A solution would be to take out managerX form Group B and leave
 it
  > > just
 > > >> in
 > > >> > Managers group. Yes, this way my problem is solved, but this
 means
   >
>> Groups
 > >> > are only used for Rights purposes. Group B (Tech Team) is no 
longer
 > > >> > semantically compact and I can't further give this group
compact
 > > tasks,
 > > >> > etc.
 > > >> >
 > > >> > Please tell if is a way to change this behavior and please have
 in
   >
mind
 > >> > XWiki 3.0, where Groups are going beyond rights management and 
they
 > > >> should
 > > >> > be seen as collaboration mechanisms (which need to be 
semantical).
   >
>> >
 > >>
 > >> IMO, XWiki 3.0 should have a complete rework of the right service
 > >> implementation, and breaks with the past.
 > >> Since this will cause many migration issue, I am not in favor of
 > >> progressive
 > >> changes, and I would prefer to see a big single change that fix 
this,
  > and
 > >> also the current discussion on script rights.
 > >>
 > >> Denis
 > >>
 > >> Rights should be inherited from upper level and should affect only 
the
  > >> > user/group where a change is
made, not make some complicated
 > >> implications
 > >> > at
 > >> > other levels and groups.
 > >> >
 > >> > Thanks,
 > >> > Caty
 > >> >
 > >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 16:48, Ecaterina Valica < 
valicac(a)gmail.com&gt;
  > >> wrote:
 > >> >
 > >> > > Hi,
 > >> > >
 > >> > > Did:
 > >> > > - source of inheritance is per rights;
 > >> > > - local source of inheritance: if the a right is allowed to
 anyone
 > > >> else
 > > >> > at
 > > >> > > the same level, it is implicitly disallowed for any others;
 > > >> > > - inheritance from upper levels / groups.
 > > >> > >
 > > >> > > Please see if I put the rights correctly:
 > > >> > > Wiki Level:
 > > >> > >
 > > 
 http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights41Wiki
  > > >> > > Space Level:
 > > >> > >
 > > >>
 > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights41Space
 > > >> > >
 > > >> > > Obs. Summary view + icons not done yet.
 > > >> > >
 > > >> > > Thanks,
 > > >> > > Caty
 > > >> > >
 > > >> > >
 > > >> > > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:31, Denis Gervalle
&lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt;
 > > wrote:
 > > >> > >
 > > >> > >> Hi Caty,
 > > >> > >>
 > > >> > >> This one is simpler and more easy to understand than
proposal  2
  > > >> (which I
 > > >> > >> liked but were complex). It is your best try IMO. I
agree  with
  > Caty
 > > >> that
 > > >> > >> using icons too reduce the place taken will not allow
easy
 > > >> extensions.
 > > >> > But
 > > >> > >> Alex proposal would help to have a summary view, which
is  nice
  to
 > > >> have
 > > >> > >> too.
 > > >> > >>
 > > >> > >> Maybe we could do both in fact. Propose a summary view
(by
 > > default),
 > > >> > which
 > > >> > >> fit a single line per user, this view would present the
 common
  > > rights
 > > >> > >> (V/C/E/D/A/(R/P)) using icons, and a last icon would be
used  to
   >
>> mention
 > >> > >> there is more special rights either inherited, allowed or
 denied.
 > > So
 > > >> we
 > > >> > >> only
 > > >> > >> need to use (and think about) a short icon
representation for
 > > common
 > > >> > >> rights,
 > > >> > >> and extended rights will be represented by a single
special
 > > >> > >> representation.
 > > >> > >> Rows could be expanded individually or globally so if
you  want
  a
  > more
 > >> > >> detailled information, you may reach it either for a single
 user
 > or
 > > >> all
 > > >> > at
 > > >> > >> once. Changing common rights would be allowed in
collapsed  mode
   and
  >> > >> expanded
 >> > >> mode, but changing special rights would only be allowed in 
expanded
 > >> > view.
 > >> > >>
 > >> > >> If you want to keep the width even smaller, you may also
 colspan
 > > the
 > > >> > >> user/group column over the others, using 2 rows per
user, but  I
   am
  >> not
 >> > >> sure
 >> > >> it will be nice. (Could this be only when horizontal space is
 short
 > >> ?)
 > >> > >>
 > >> > >> I really like this one because it is simple to learn without
 > >> > documentation
 > >> > >> and could also help learning how rights works, but there is
 again
 > > >> > >> some inconstancies with the current implementation.
Compare  to
  > > >> proposal
 > > >> > 3,
 > > >> > >> these inconsistencies may be nicely fixed and really
helps
 > > >> understanding
 > > >> > >> why
 > > >> > >> the right is disallowed at any time. You can do it like
this:
 > > >> > >>
 > > >> > >>  - the inheritance pop-up information should be at the
right
 > level
 > > in
 > > >> > >> the inheritance columns. The rights are inherited and
check
 > > >> > individually,
 > > >> > >> so
 > > >> > >> the precise source of inheritance is per rights, not
only per
 > user
 > > or
 > > >> > >> group
 > > >> > >>  - there is a local source of inheritance: if the a
right is
 > > allowed
 > > >> to
 > > >> > >> anyone else at the same level, it is implicitly
disallowed  for
   any
 > >> > others.
 > >> > >> So the source of inheritance is the local level, implying a
 deny
 > > >> because
 > > >> > >> the
 > > >> > >> local level has at least a specific allow. This means
than  when
  > you
 > > >> drag
 > > >> > >> the
 > > >> > >> first time a right in the allow column, all other
user/group  at
   the
 > >> same
 > >> > >> level will have that right inherited deny from the current
 level.
 > > >> (For
 > > >> > >> those
 > > >> > >> who wonder and will check the source of the right
service,  yes,
  > > there
 > > >> is
 > > >> > >> potential performance improvement by immediately denying
when  a
  > > >> > >> non-matching
 > > >> > >> allow is found, currently we continue to check right at
 higher
  > > level
 > > >> for
 > > >> > >> more deny, this is not really clever)
 > > >> > >>
 > > >> > >> With these changes, I really feel that this last
proposal  could
  > be
 > > a
 > > >> > real
 > > >> > >> improvement in the way rights are applied, and keeps
the
 > interface
 > > >> > simple
 > > >> > >> at
 > > >> > >> the same time.
 > > >> > >>
 > > >> > >> WDYT ?
 > > >> > >>
 > > >> > >> Denis
 > > >> > >>
 > > >> > >> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 07:57, Ecaterina Valica <
 > valicac(a)gmail.com
 > > >
 > > >> > >> wrote:
 > > >> > >>
 > > >> > >> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius <
 > > >> alex.busenius(a)xwiki.com
 > > >> > >> > >wrote:
 > > >> > >> >
 > > >> > >> > > I like this version, it makes clear what is
 allowed/denied
   and
 > >> why,
 > >> > >> but
 > >> > >> > > it takes a lot of space. What if those rights names
would  be
 > > >> > replaced
 > > >> > >> by
 > > >> > >> > > big icons and placed side by side? Like this
(sorry for
 > > >> ASCII-art):
 > > >> > >> > >
 > > >> > >> > >
 > > >> 
-------------------+-------------------------------------+--+------
  > > >> > >> > >
Unregistered users | [+V] [+C] [+R] [-D] [-A] [-P] [-CC]  |
   |
 > > >> [-E]
 > > >> > >> > >
 > > >> > >> > >
 > > >> > >> > Big Icons:
 > > >> > >> > We are using Silk set for our icons and this is
 constraining.
   >
Also,
 > >> > >> Rights
 > >> > >> > version 3-4 were made having rights extensibility in
mind,  for
 > > use
 > > >> > cases
 > > >> > >> > like adding "captchaComment" right, or
"annotate" right, or
 > > >> > >> > "applicationXusage" right .... so I
don't think is very  good
  if
 > > >> > >> > applications
 > > >> > >> > are gonna have to choose their custom icon to
represent  their
  > > >> custom
 > > >> > >> right,
 > > >> > >> > because is gonna be a mess in the UI.
 > > >> > >> >
 > > >> > >> > There are few possible icons to choose from (in
order to  keep
  > the
 > > >> > >> look&feel
 > > >> > >> > unitary) and having the developers choose their own
icon  for
  > the
 > > >> right
 > > >> > >> they
 > > >> > >> > extend is gonna break the UI consistency.
 > > >> > >> > I think is much easier, extensible and less visual
cryptic  to
   >
>> textual
 > >> > >> > describe an extensible right.
 > >> > >> >
 > >> > >> > Placed side by side:
 > >> > >> > Version 4 takes a lot of space, yes, but the problem
with  side
 > by
 > > >> side
 > > >> > >> is
 > > >> > >> > that is less readable (harder to scan the rights
order).  Also
  > > it's
 > > >> > >> easier
 > > >> > >> > to
 > > >> > >> > have a bigger area to select when you want to drag
an item.
 > > >> > >> >
 > > >> > >> > Thanks Alex for your feedback,
 > > >> > >> > Caty
 > > >> > >> >
 > > >> > >> > >
 > > >> > >> > > Alex
 > > >> > >> > >
 > > >> > >> > >
 > > >> > >> > > On 05/21/2010 07:51 PM, Ecaterina Valica
wrote:
 > > >> > >> > > > Hi,
 > > >> > >> > > >
 > > >> > >> > > > Changes:
 > > >> > >> > > >
 > > >> > >> > > >    - One additional column is added:
"Default /  Inherited
  > > >> Rights",
 > > >> > >> by
 > > >> > >> > > >    default all rights appear in this
column
 > > >> > >> > > >    - By using drag'n'drop items
are tossed around  between
   >
>> "Allow
 > >> > >> > rights",
 > >> > >> > > >    "Deny rights" and "Default /
Inherited Rights"
 > >> > >> > > >
 > >> > >> > > > Rights Proposal 4:
 > >> > >> > > >
 > >> > >> >
 > >> > >>
 > >> >
 > >>
 > 
 http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Proposal
  > >> > >> > > > Wiki
Prototype:
 > >> > >> > > >
 > >> > >>
 > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Wiki
 > >> > >> > > > Space Prototype:
 > >> > >> > > >
 > >> > >>
 > >> 
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Space
 > > >> > >> > > >
 > > >> > >> > > > This proposal is done by using feedback
provided by  Roman
    >> Muntyanu
 >> > >> and
 >> > >> > > > Raluca Morosan.
 >> > >> > > > Thanks,
 >> > >> > > > Caty
 >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________
 >> > >> > > > users mailing list
 >> > >> > > > users(a)xwiki.org
 >> > >> > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
 >> > >> > > >
 >> > >> > > _______________________________________________
 >> > >> > > devs mailing list
 >> > >> > > devs(a)xwiki.org
 >> > >> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
 >> > >> > >
 >> > >> > _______________________________________________
 >> > >> > users mailing list
 >> > >> > users(a)xwiki.org
 >> > >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
 >> > >> >
 >> > >>
 >> > >>
 >> > >>
 >> > >> --
 >> > >> Denis Gervalle
 >> > >> SOFTEC sa - CEO
 >> > >> eGuilde sarl - CTO
 >> > >> _______________________________________________
 >> > >> devs mailing list
 >> > >> devs(a)xwiki.org
 >> > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
 >> > >>
 >> > >
 >> > >
 >> > _______________________________________________
 >> > users mailing list
 >> > users(a)xwiki.org
 >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
 >> >
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> --
 >> Denis Gervalle
 >> SOFTEC sa - CEO
 >> eGuilde sarl - CTO
 >> _______________________________________________
 >> 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

 --
 Denis Gervalle
 SOFTEC sa - CEO
 eGuilde sarl - CTO
 _______________________________________________
 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

 --
 Denis Gervalle
 SOFTEC sa - CEO
 eGuilde sarl - CTO
 _______________________________________________
 devs mailing list
 devs(a)xwiki.org
 http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Re: [xwiki-users] [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Rights Management UI