On Jan 17, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Pascal Voitot wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Vincent Massol > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 17, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Pascal Voitot wrote: >> >>> Some questions arising in my head: >>> do you want to make the WYSIWYG the cornerstone of XWiki online >>> editing or >>> is it only the XWiki2.0 syntax editor? >>> do you want to make multi-syntax a key feature of XWiki or is it >>> only a >>> facility provided so that people can use easily XWiki and when they >>> are used >>> to it, they will naturally begin to use XWIki2.0 syntax? >>> >>> If WYSIWYG is used only with XWiki2.0 syntax, it might look like you >>> are >>> strongly encouraging people to use XWIki2.0 syntax instead of other >>> syntaxes. Is it a good or bad strategy? I don't know... to be >>> discussed :) >> >> IMO we must strongly encourage people to use the xwiki 2.0 syntax and >> the other syntaxes are only a facility (at least for now and the >> foreseeable future IMO). Reasons: >> 1) it's hard to fix all parsers for all syntaxes > > > It might even become crazy to support... > > *One wiki to rule them all, one wiki to find them, one wiki to bring > them > all, and in the darkness bind them.* > > We know the end of the story :) So, Maybe, it would be better to > propose an > nice API to add a new syntax parser.
We have that already and we're not developing the other parsers. They're already developed. Only problem is that they're buggy. > Some people might be interested in > developping the parser for their own needs and provide it to the > community. Sure. All we need is to write a tutorial. >> 2) other syntaxes are all way less powerful than the xwiki syntax. > > > for this point, I trust you :) > > >> >> 3) there are issues with links in other syntaxes. For ex the ability >> to link to multi wikis which doesn't exist in most syntaxes so >> they'll >> only offer a very small subset of xwiki linking features and you >> wouldn't be able to link between wikis. Unless we extend other >> syntaxes of course (need to find syntax for doing that and write link >> parsers for that) > > > If you extend other syntaxes, I'm not sure their creator will be happy > and you won't be compliant anymore with the real syntax. No we would be compliant. Only in one direction. > The problem is also that other syntaxes will continue their > evolution. If > you want to keep compliance, you will have to support these > modifications. > It's an endless and non-sense work... That's fine and ok since this is a community effort. It's not like we're deciding to write parsers for all syntaxes. > Being a "meta-something" (meta-wiki in our case) is always nice on > paper but > it's rarely a possible project... It's really not far since there are already those other parsers existing. Right now the main thing missing is the link parsers. > Finally, xwiki2.0 syntax might be the most powerful syntax today but > tomorrow, will it be true?Could it happen that the wysiwyg proposes a > feature for a specific syntax that is not supported by xwiki2.0? No since we're developing it with xwiki 2.0 syntax in mind. Also it doesn't matter if some other syntax becomes more powerful since that would work with the WYSIWYG editor (provided it's a superset of the xwiki 2.0 syntax). Also we can have a xwiki 3.0 syntax so there's no problem there. >> 4) the new wysiwyg only works well with the 2.0 syntax > > > It could evolve progressively so that this dependency is lazier and > so that > one could add another syntax to the wysiwyg, deactivate unsupported > features > from the interface etc... Yes that's option 2 I proposed. >> 5) We'd need to write syntax renderers for all syntaxes if we want >> them to be equal to the xwiki 2.0 one but if we do so then we have >> the >> issues raised in 2). >> >> As time progresses we'll probably improve other syntax support but >> right now we must encourage people to use the xwiki 2.0 syntax as >> much >> as possible and consider the other syntaxes as migration strategies >> IMO. >> > > I think you are writing "xwiki", not "xwiki for confluence users" for > example... So it's certainly better to promote your syntax which > corresponds > to your vision, your architecture and your way of thinking... > But to bring compatibility with other syntaxes, I don't know what's > the best > way: to write converters or to support the syntax directly in the > editor... > The second option is quite sexy but it might be impossible to > support. I > would say: "This is a marketing choice! What other syntax do we need > to > support so that people tend to use our product and increase our market > share?"... Oh sorry I forgot this is an opensource project :)... But > maybe, > you could think about supporting one or 2 other well-chosen syntaxes Yes if we had to choose another syntax to support we would probably pick mediawiki IMO since lots of xwiki users are coming from there. The first step is to implement the link parser for the mediawiki syntax. Once this is done we're already covering about 80% of the mediawiki syntax. Back to the topic I think it's not too hard for the GWT editor to work based on syntax capabilities. The editor dev team should have this in mind but I don't think it's our priority. Once the first final release of the GWT editor is done in march then we could introduce this for other syntaxes. -Vincent > > which are commonly used to attract some people to XWiki and bring > their new > ideas to our community! > > Pascal > > > > >> >> WDYT? >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> Pascal >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Vincent Massol >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Just realized that our new WYSIWYG editor will only work fine with >>>> our >>>> xwiki 2.0 syntax since other wiki syntaxes are less powerful and >>>> won't >>>> be able to express some complex structures (like embedding a >>>> document >>>> inside a table cell) or simply like styling a portion of text. >>>> >>>> Of course this is not a problem of the wysiwyg editor per see but >>>> in >>>> practice it means that users using it for other syntaxes when they >>>> save will get a different rendered result. >>>> >>>> So I"m tempted to say that our GWT editor will only work for the >>>> xwiki >>>> 2.0 syntax and that for the other syntaxes users will have to use >>>> the >>>> wiki editor. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
