I'm a bit afraid by B2.. It sound really weird to me to have all this some text $nl $sp next line
#if (...) this goes on the same line #something(...) <-- this is also on the same line #end $nl $nl This a new paragraph Not produce something that would look more like what is typed. The stripping of leading white spaces sounds ok to me. But the stripping of new lines sounds bad to me. We can still use ## for spacing out code if I don't want a line for it. This sounds a good solution to me. I don't really understand the issur with line breaks with the new line starting with space. For splitting code over 2 lines, could we use \ at the end of the line to remove the new line ? So I'm +1 B1/ -1 on B2/ I'm not sure to understand the implications of A/ Vincent Massol a écrit : > Hi devs, > > We need to come to a conclusion for handling New Lines(NL) and white > spaces (WS) in HTML and Velocity Macro. > If you remember from http://markmail.org/thread/mhqhxnz5twhev5se the > current problem is that we cannot indent scripts since WS and NL are > meaningful. > > I'd like to reiterate the proposal that was sent but not enough people > voted on it (only Thomas did). > > A) For the HTML macro, we propose to make the following changes: > - strip NL/WS between elements (elements that don't accept CDATA) > - strip leading/trailing NL/WS for element content before passing them > to the wiki syntax parser > > B) for the Velocity macro we have 2 choices I can think of: > > 1) strip all leading spaces for all lines (but keep NL) > > Note that this means that inside a velocity macro you wouldn't be able > to have a line break with the new line starting with spaces without > escaping the leading space with ~(space). > Note also that this means we will not be able to add extra new lines > to format the text nicely (since that would add new paragraphs) or > split a single line into several lines for extra readability. This is > the case today with the old syntax and it's a pain not to be able to > aerate the text with empty lines. > > Ex: > > some text > ~ next line #if (...) this goes on the same line #something(...) > #end > > This is a new paragraph > > In this example notice that we need the velocity #if to be on the same > line since NL are significant. > > 2) strip all leading spaces for all lines + remove all NL too. > > This means we need to ensure we still have one space remaining between > "words" (same as HTML). > The user would use something like $nl and $sp to explicitely enter new > lines and spaces. > The advantage is that you control completely the formatting (no magic > anymore) at the cost of a little extra work (adding the $nl where > required). > Basically this means the same pros/cons as when you work with HTML > where you need to explicitly add <br/> when you want new lines. > > Ex: > > some text $nl > $sp next line > > #if (...) > this goes on the same line > #something(...) <-- this is also on the same line > #end > > $nl $nl > This a new paragraph > > Note: I've aerated the text by putting extra new lines around the > velocity #if to show that it would work. > > 3) Same as 1) + strip 1 NL (i.e. line breaks) and only allow "forced" > line breaks with "\\". > > The exact algorithm is: if there's 1 NL remove it, if there's more > than 1 leave them. > > Ex: > > some text\\ > ~ next line > #if (...) > this goes on the same line > #something(...) <-- this is also on the same line > #end > > This a new paragraph > > I'm +1 for A) > > For B) I think the most flexible is 2) but I'm wondering if it's too > big a change for our users or not. If not 2) then 3). > > Thanks > -Vincent > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > -- Ludovic Dubost Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
