On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Denis, > > On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi devs, > > > > I have a very bad feeling with proposal 3, since it split the identifier, > > which makes its main part to loose its meaning when taken alone. So you > > cannot comunicate the whole information easily on different channels > (think > > about copy/pasting such reference ?). This is also really verbose, > sometime > > it looks odd, and I found it to be complex from a user view point. > > Moreover, it could not be easily applied in other situation than links, > > while ressource identification is not limited to links (think about a > macro > > arguments ?, see MotionComposer macro that imitate image: for an > example). > > I know it is hard, but I am currently -1 for this proposal. > > > > If we look at large, what we really need and intend to achieve is to have > > an extensible syntax to identify ressources in XWiki. There is obviously > a > > ready made standardized syntax for such purpose: URN. Proposal 1 is > really > > near that specification (but too verbose for URL), but I agree with > Thomas > > that users will complains to be forced to use doc: everywhere. This is > > precisely why I made proposal 2, which will fully avoid that constrains > for > > user of single wikis (a lot of our user since XE was our mostly > downloaded > > distribution until now). > > > > So my vote are (sorry Vincent, but your request to have a truly single > vote > > is far too restrictive for this matter) > > +1 to really conform with a URN syntax as much as possible (remove the > > useless verbosity for URL). > > Proposal 1: +0 > > Proposal 2: +1 > > Proposal 3: -1 > > I also prefer URIs but my problem with solution 2 is having to prefix with > "doc:" for links to subwikis. This is pretty common. I do not see why this is so annoying, we type http:// to start URLs, and I do not feel anyone has ever complains. So, solution 1 is not that bad, and solution 2 is only a feature over it, for those who use very basic feature. It compare to the omnibox of chrome that try to be clever and works in most situations, but some still require you to enter the http:// prefix. > I had proposed another solution in the other thread with a different > notation for proper URI notations. The idea was to use the shortcut > notation when you wanted to use document references for simplicity reasons > and use the proper syntax when you use proper URIs. > > Maybe that solution wasn't that bad. I'm putting it again here (with a > difference using [[[…]]] instead of >>> as I had said since that doesn't > work for images): > > * Shortcut notation for doc refs: [[label>>docref]] > * General notations for URIs: [[[label>>type:reference]]] > * Shortcut notation for images: [[image:docref]] > * General notation for URIs in images: [[[image:type:reference]]] > > It looks clunky at first but it isn't really since it represents what we > want: > * shortcut notation for doc URIs > * full notation for any URI > > WDYT? > This again increase complexity (from a user POV) for very little benefit IMO. It look odd and again it cannot be applied anywhere, like in macros. So I see this fourth solution not much better than solution 3. > Thanks > -Vincent > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Typos below. > >> > >> On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi devs, > >>> > >>> Following this thread http://markmail.org/thread/vw3derowozijqalr it > >> seems clear that we need to introduce a better syntax for links and > images > >> in XWiki Syntax 2.2 (in order to cope with use cases such as > >> http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XRENDERING-290). > >>> > >>> The need is to be able to plug new reference type handlers without > >> breaking backward compatibility in XWiki Syntax 2.2 (since right now > with > >> XWiki Syntax 2.0 and 2.1 adding a new type reference handler would break > >> backward compatibility). > >>> > >>> So here are various proposals to that effect for XWiki Syntax 2.2 (I've > >> only kept the interesting proposals from the previous thread). Please > vote > >> for the one you prefer or add new solutions if you have other better > ideas. > >>> > >>> Proposal 1 > >>> ========= > >>> > >>> Force XWiki Syntax 2.2 to *ALWAYS* use the full form when creating a > >> link or image, i.e. all links would need to be written: > >> [[label>>type:reference]] > >>> > >>> Examples: > >>> * [[label>>doc:space.page]] > >>> * [[label>>doc:wiki:space.page]] > >>> * [[label>>path:/some/path]] > >>> * [[label>>url:http://xwiki.org]] > >>> * [[label>>user:evalica]] > >>> * [[image:doc:wiki:[email protected]]] > >>> * [[image:icon:someicon.png]] > >>> > >>> CONS: > >>> * Harder to write links to documents which is the main use case > >>> > >>> Proposal 2 > >>> ========= > >>> > >>> Same as with XWiki Syntax 2.1 but for links or images to subwikis force > >> the user to use the "doc:" notation > >>> > >>> Examples: > >>> * [[label>>space.page]] or [[label>>doc:space.page]] > >>> * [[label>>doc:wiki:space.page]] > >>> * [[label>>>path:/some/path]] > >> > >> Should be [[label>>path:/some/path]] > >> > >>> * [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>>url:http://xwiki.org]] > >> > >> Should be [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>url:http://xwiki.org > ]] > >> > >>> * [[label>>user:evalica]] > >>> * [[image:doc:wiki:[email protected]]] > >>> * [[image:icon:someicon.png]] > >>> > >>> PRO: > >>> * Still easy to reference docs and images in the current wiki > >>> * Close to current XWiki Syntax 2.1 > >>> > >>> CONS: > >>> * Harder to write links to documents in subwikis (for workspaces users > >> for example, see example of xwiki.org) > >>> > >>> Proposal 3 > >>> ========= > >>> > >>> Always define the type as a link or image parameter, i.e. separate > >> subwiki notation from type. > >>> > >>> Examples: > >>> * [[label>>space.page]] or [[label>>space.page||type="doc"]] > >>> * [[label>>wiki:space.page]] or [[label>>wiki:space.page||type="doc"]] > >>> * [[label>>>/some/path||type="path"]] > >> > >> Should be [[label>>/some/path||type="path"]] > >> > >>> * [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>>http://xwiki.org > >> ||type="url"]] > >> > >> Should be [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>http://xwiki.org > >> ||type="url"]] > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > >>> * [[label>>evalica||type="user"]] > >>> * [[image:wiki:[email protected]]] or > >> [[image:wiki:[email protected]||type="doc"]] > >>> * [[image:someicon.png||type="icon"]] > >>> > >>> PRO: > >>> * Still easy to reference docs > >>> * Clear separation between subwiki and types > >>> > >>> CONS: > >>> * Harder to write typed links > >>> * Harder to write references in non xwiki/2.x syntax that would not > >> support link parameters > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> -Vincent > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
