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 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
I don't like too much having two different syntaxes for links and I agree with Denis that it keep the choice very close to wiki syntax. It's also the hardest proposal to implement. IMO if the main reason to defeat 3 is that we need full reference outside of wiki syntax (and I think it is) then we need to forget about wiki syntax solutions and only think about the reference itself. > > WDYT? > > 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 -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
