On May 1, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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… >> > > Are we talking about navigating the wiki ? no, we are talking about editing > hyperlinked documents, and you need to type the http:// as soon as you > refer a document outside of your current server. Isn't that comparable to > linking document in another wiki ?
I never ever type a URL! The only thing I do is copy paste URLs into documents… >> 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... >> > > I do not believe 1) is a good argument. First, if users prefer simpler > syntax for subwiki's links compare to an extensible URI base syntax, they > may simply continue to use syntax 2.1. Bad argument because our goal is to move users to the latest syntax. The idea is that the latest syntax is better so, no, we cannot say to users that they should stay on the old syntax because it's nicer to type link refs… :) > Second, are there so much users with > that preference, that also use multiple wikis with links between them ? I think so, especially since we're making XEM the default (first step was virtual=1 by default, second step is to be able to create wikis by default). > Finally, we also provide other means to create documents then writing them > using the xwiki syntax. We could also think about improving the editor to > insert link/image more easily. IMO this fails the concept of the wiki syntax which is to be extra simple and quick to use. So yes auto completion on linking/images is a good thing we need in the future but if we could also have a simple syntax at least for doc ref it would be good. > So is the limitation of solution 2, imposed by the need for flexibility, so > blocker, as you seems to believe ? - Solution 1 is nice because it's simple and coherent. But harder to write doc refs - Solution 2 is slightly less nice because not coherent. Simple to write doc refs but not cross wikis. - Solution 3 is less nice because it drops the concept of URIs which could prove useful in the future for other things in XWiki - Solution 4: is less nice than 1 because less coherent but at the same level of coherency as solution 2 and 3 and at the same time it doesn't have the drawback of solution 2. It's very close to solution 3 but keeping the concept of URIs. > Regarding point 2), I have not enough knowledge of other wikis, but it > could be interesting to elaborate and see how and which of those other > wikis really support easy interwiki links in there syntax, while providing > at the same time support to different kind of ressources. I may be wrong, > but I do not believe there will be numerous competitor with those criteria. They don't have this concept. But we need to be careful, we cannot allow to be powerful and complex. We need to be powerful and simple. So making the main use case hard just for supporting other use cases that are used 5% of the time is not a good solution IMO. >>> 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 :) >> > > Have I said the contrary ? 4 is better than 3, but not that much IMO since > we still have the split issue. 4 solve the problem for your current needs, > but does not lead to a general way of identifying ressources in XWiki. It does! It's like solution 1 actually. Again here it is (and again we could think of another syntax if we want, we don't have to use [[[…]]], we could use for example [[[label>>type:reference]]] Now just because we want to make it easy to type doc ref we also allow a **shortcut** (not the canonical way!): [[label>>docref]] > Having a consistant solution is also important, and a good way to simplify > the user experience. Yes but only solution 1 provides this but at a big cost which I currently consider too large. Of course since this is an important decision I'd like to know what others think too. > 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. >> > > I do not agree, if you're keen on URIs (and I am) Solution 1 is the best > one, considering it will only affect a new syntax. Thanks -Vincent >> 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
