Hi Denis, On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Yes but we don't type URLs often at all… We navigate by clicking. Imagine that every time you click on a link you had to instead type it, it would become quickly an issue… In any case I think the main issue now is that 1) we have already offered a simpler way for users to type references to docs and 2) other wikis also propose this simpler way. Because of these 2 points, I'm not sure we can ever go back to making it harder to type references to docs... > 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. You're not very logical here :) You said you wanted URIs and solution 4 is about URIs while solution 3 isn't about URIs so you should prefer solution 4 over solution 3 normally :) If you're keen on URIs (as I am, thanks for reminding me that in your email btw :)), then I believe solution 4 is currently the best one. Thanks -Vincent >> 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 _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
