On Feb 19, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Dan Miron wrote:
> Vincent Massol wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Dan Miron wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Regarding the http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XWIKI-2964 issue,
>>> this
>>> is how I see it:
>>> - Grabbing the icons from the silk iconset
>>> - Creating a macro called 'icon' with the following parameters:
>>> - fileName (required) the name of the file which holds
>>> the
>>>
>>
>> I don't like that parameter name. I prefer the more anonymous "name"
>>
>>
>>> icon; here I see two possible approaches:
>>> - with (optional)
>>> - height (optional)
>>>
>>
>> I don't think we should specify width and height since we're using
>> bitmaps. Would be nice to use SVG for sure but 1) the silk icon set
>> is
>> not SVG and 2) I don't think ie6 supports SVG out of the box.
>>
>>
>>> An example of usage would be the following:
>>> {{icon fileName="arrow_out.gif" with="20" height="20" /}}
>>>
>>
>> I'd prefer:
>>
>> {{icon name="arrow_out"//}}
>>
>> Now for easy emoticons usage I think (I'm not sure) that we could use
>> a Rendering Transformation instead that would recognize special
>> characters (such as :) ) and internally transform them into icon
>> macros.
>> However there's a use case I haven't thought about which is that the
>> xwiki syntax renderer should probably not use transformed XDOM to
>> generate wiki syntax since otherwise that makes Transformations
>> persistent. Then there's the question of the WYSIWYG editor... Need
>> to
>> think some more about this...
>>
>> At least you could start implementing the icon macro before we agree
>> on the emoticon part.
>>
>
> I could go on with {{icon name="arrow_out"//}} but this means that the
> extension will be assumed as ".gif"
IMO the mapping between names and resources is the role of the macro
itself, so it can have a map to do whatever mapping it needs. Of
course it means users cannot add new resources without changing the
macro but I think simplicity is better than genericity here in this
case. We could make it generic too by doing the following:
* Create a {{image}} macro that takes a "location" parameter. This
location is relative to the resources directory in the webapp. For
example:
{{image location="icons/silk/arrow_out.gif"/}}
* Create a {{icon}} macro that extends the image macro but only offers
a "name" parameter. This macro will do the mapping between names and
image resources.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
> but it offers the advantage that
> it's quite intuitive. As for the smileys, we could postpone
> implementing
> them until things become more clear.
>
> On the other hand, this is what Anca says:
>
> -------------------------
> Would it be any difference between this macro and the image markup
> ([[image:reference]] or image:reference), besides the way the image
> file
> resolution (image: looks it up as an attachment whereas the {{icon}}
> macro would
> getit from the silk icon set) ?
>
> Any way we could make these icons accessible as image: references
> instead of
> building a whole new macro for it, for syntax simplicity?
>
>
> -------------------------
>
> So what do you think? Should I go ahead with what I proposed above?
> I'd
> say yes, because it's more intuitive than using image:reference.
>
> Tnx,
> Dan
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
