On 11 Dec 2014 at 14:03:59, Marius Dumitru Florea
([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11 Dec 2014 at 12:46:48, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
> > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> >
> >> Related to Vincent's comment:
> >> As a designer I would want to be able to write CSS as simple as possible.
> >
> > Then just write CSS directly :)
> >
> >> Already I need to know that I need to add my CSS to a SSX object. I
> >> wouldn't want to know that if I need to write LESS I need to use whatever
> >> other object or macro.
> >
> > That’s not CSS, that’s LESS.
> >
> >> Also I want a simple solution where the existing CSS written to be easily
> >> adaptable. If I need to use some FlamingoThemes variables, already is
> >> complicated that I need to know that I need less.
> >> So I'm not a fan of having the css in wiki syntax. I don't want to write
> >> css with ruby, python or whatever. I was in need of velocity because back
> >> then less didn't existed (so we didn't had variables, etc.)
> >> Also I assume css and less would need different macros and maybe they would
> >> need to be nested and mixed together, which is again more of a xwiki style,
> >> but definitely not a 'web' style.
> >
> > What’s the need for a CSS macro?
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
>
> I don't want to write {{less}} or {{css}} every time I do some
> styling.
My idea would be to have a default source syntax to be plaintext + macro (i.e.
plaintext but also support to specify macros, possibly using the same syntax as
for XWiki Syntax 2.x).
> I really don't think we need wiki syntax (scripting macros
> precisely) when writing style sheets.
Yes I didn’t express myself properly. I meant a Rendering Syntax (not Wiki
Syntax).
> No one has ever asked for this.
> So I'm -1. As Caty said, users should be able to paste their CSS/LESS
> code without doing any useless wrapping.
It’s very simple it boils down to only 2 possibilites:
1) Either you have a select box that you need to click to explain what your
content is about
2) or you have a context field only and you decide what it contains by using
some type of annotations (and in my first proposal the default was CSS since
this is what a SSX object is about, so for CSS you don’t need to specify
anything).
Now 1) initially seems to be fine with “Syntax” combo with various options:
“CSS”, “LESS”, “CSS+Velocity”, etc. The only problem is that you’ll never be
able to specify all the syntax combination that exist.
2) makes it even more easy than now to write pure CSS (since it removes the
velocity checkbox and you paste CSS directly) but also allows extending with
other more exotic features such as LESS, SAAS, scripting, include (so that the
content is defined on some other pages and can be reused between SSX)
> It's a big difference between
> the content of a wiki page and the style sheet object. I want to be
> able to use wiki syntax in the content of the wiki page because it
> doesn't have any specific purpose.
There’s no difference at all. Whenever you have a text area you need to put
content in it that’s of a given syntax, whatever the syntax! This is exactly
the same for a wiki page.
> The content can be used to generate
> HTML, JSON, XML, whatever, depending on the application.
A wiki page generates content in XHTML. A SSX text area generates “CSS” syntax
as output (which can be assimilated as plaintext for our need).
> On the other
> hand the style sheet extension object has a very specific purpose. It
> should be very easy and really straightforward to use it (e.g. "don't
> make me think”).
I don’t see why this would be a privilege of a SSX. This should be true for any
part of xwiki, be it for writing the content of a page or anything else.
And BTW having 2 checkboxes to choose from all the time (one for parsing and
one for the CSS preprocessor to use) even when you all you need is simple CSS
isn’t simplicity for me… My solution is actually simpler than what we currently
have and simpler than GD’s proposal when the need is to use CSS.
> > PS: Saying that you’ll never need scripting is just wishful thinking IMO… I
> > can already find tons of use cases where you’d need it (not even counting
> > the many places we use velocity in our SSX)...
>
> From my experience we don't use scripting that much in SSX objects.
> And when we do, it really boils down to:
>
> (1) color theme variables, which will be replaced by LESS variables
> (2) getting the URL of some internal resource (getSkinFile /
> getAttachmentURL). For this, if we want to get rid of scripting we can
> introduce a special syntax for the url('xyz') CSS value:
>
> background-image: url("skin://icons/xwiki/create-link.png");
> background-image: url("attach://myOwnIcon.png”);
You’ll always have edge case needs where having some script will help you.
BTW it’s true that LESS can replace velocity to some degree (since you can set
some variables and reuse them for example) but it’s quite primitive compared to
Velocity and all our java API behind and it’s also a lot lot less performant.
LESS is a pain on performance and the more we can avoid it the better. Also
we’re not guaranteed that LESS will be here to stay…
> In any case, +1 for Guillaume's proposal (adding a new property to the
> SSX object).
So to sum up I’m less against having a “Syntax/Content Type” combo specifying
what syntax the Code property will contain with 2 values for now:
- CSS
- LESS
This removes the need for a {{less}} macro (which could potentially be useful
if you want to write a <script> tag in the content of a wiki page and use LESS
content to generate the CSS but that’s another story…).
However, the problem of scripting remains but can be fixed with what I
mentioned above, i.e. introducing a plaintext + macro syntax that would allow
to enter CSS or LESS content and still be able to use xwiki macros if the user
wants/needs it.
Thanks
-Vincent
> Thanks,
> Marius
>
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Caty
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau <
> >> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I would like to add some precisions.
> >> >
> >> > Most of my work during this week was on the LESS Module to be able to
> >> > compile (with a cache mechanism) any kind of resources and not only files
> >> > anymore.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks to that, my prototype of SSX implementation was easy to do in 2
> >> > hours or so, and I believe using my refactored API in any other
> >> > implementation (new xobjects, etc...) could be done quickly.
> >> >
> >> > So I am not asking you to accept an already-written-solution and we can
> >> > still discuss :)
> >> >
> >> > What Vincent proposes seems to be a good idea. However, after some
> >> > discussions with him, it would require an amount of work that is not
> >> > compatible with the current release date.
> >> >
> >> > So my actual proposal is the following:
> >> >
> >> > - Modify the SSX object to introduce the LESS preprocessor, as I have
> >> > proposed previously, as a temporary solution/hack.
> >> > - In the future (7.x maybe?), deprecate the current SSX object and
> >> > create a
> >> > new SSX object that will use the wiki syntax. Create a {{less}} macro too
> >> > to be able to use LESS everywhere (in new SSX objects but also in the
> >> > XDOM).
> >> >
> >> > I hope you like this idea,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > 2014-12-11 11:29 GMT+01:00 [email protected] :
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 11 Dec 2014 at 11:08:16, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
> >> > > ([email protected]
> >> > > (mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Why do we need to add a new essx one? IMO we just add the new
> >> > > > property
> >> > > and
> >> > > > make sure the default value for 'CSS preprocesor' is 'none’.
> >> > >
> >> > > I think you didn’t read my proposal because I explained why :)
> >> > >
> >> > > The solution with CSS preprocessor is a hack, doesn’t always work as
> >> > > Guillaume pointed out and doesn’t support all future use cases.
> >> > >
> >> > > The solution I proposed solves all the needs, a lot more, and goes in
> >> > > the
> >> > > general direction where we remove all places in xwiki where we support
> >> > only
> >> > > one specific language and replace that by wiki syntax (and thus support
> >> > all
> >> > > existing languages). In this case, it’s not normal that we support only
> >> > > velocity and my proposal not only solves this but also solves using the
> >> > > LESS processor or any other thing you wish to do.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks
> >> > > -Vincent
> >> > >
> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > Caty
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:59 AM, [email protected]
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Note that if we don’t want to break backward compatibility we keep
> >> > the
> >> > > > > current ssx and deprecate it and introduce a new essx one (for
> >> > extended
> >> > > > > ssx, or any other name…).
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks
> >> > > > > -Vincent
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 11 Dec 2014 at 10:54:46, [email protected] ([email protected]
> >> > > (mailto:
> >> > > > > [email protected])) wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hi Guillaume,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > This is not a domain I know well so maybe what I’ll say is not
> >> > > correct..
> >> > > > > :)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > What about keeping the exact same xobject structure as now but
> >> > > instead
> >> > > > > of considering the content of the textarea to be plain text we
> >> > > consider it
> >> > > > > to be wiki syntax that is rendered using our plaintext renderer.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > This would allow use to use any more (including the {{velocity}}
> >> > > macro,
> >> > > > > {{include}} macro, etc) but it also allows us to introduce some new
> >> > > > > {{less}} macro that would preprocess its content and generate CSS.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > This would also allow us to remove the “parse” option which tells
> >> > us
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > we run velocity or not (this is actually bad since we may want to
> >> > > > > run
> >> > > ruby,
> >> > > > > python, groovy, etc).
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thanks
> >> > > > > > -Vincent
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On 11 Dec 2014 at 10:20:49, Guillaume Louis-Marie Delhumeau (
> >> > > > > [email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hi.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Since the beginning of the week, I am working to have the LESS
> >> > > > > > > pre-processor inside our Skin Extension objects (see:
> >> > > > > > > http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-10708). It would enable us
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > use
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > Flamingo Theme variables and all bootstrap's mixins inside SSX
> >> > (see
> >> > > > > > > http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-11374).
> >> > > > > > > Example of use-case: http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-11408
> >> > > (Menu
> >> > > > > > > Application: Improve default look to make it better-looking
> >> > > > > > > with
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > Flamingo skin).
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I have created a design page there for the details:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/LESSModuleImprovements
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I propose to add a new property inside the
> >> > > XWiki.StyleSheetExtension
> >> > > > > class
> >> > > > > > > which will be called "CSS preprocessor". The actual possible
> >> > values
> >> > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > be "LESS" or "none", but in the future we can imagine having
> >> > > "SASS" or
> >> > > > > > > anything else. Then I propose to change the actual SSX action
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > perform a
> >> > > > > > > LESS compilation if needed. Note that the user would still be
> >> > able
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > or not Velocity in addition of the CSS preprocessor.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > The other possibilities (that are not part of this proposal)
> >> > > > > > > are
> >> > to
> >> > > > > create
> >> > > > > > > a new XWiki.LESSStyleSheetExtension and a new LSSX action which
> >> > > would
> >> > > > > > > behave exactly as the previous objet and action, or to have the
> >> > > > > ability to
> >> > > > > > > choose the processor directly inside the SSX content, with a
> >> > > special
> >> > > > > line
> >> > > > > > > like "# preprocessor = less" or something like that.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I have made a prototype that is working (
> >> > > > > > > https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/tree/feature-less-ssx)
> >> > > and I
> >> > > > > am
> >> > > > > > > taking care of the compatibility with older skins that do not
> >> > > > > > > use
> >> > > LESS
> >> > > > > > > (Colibri for instance).
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Here is my +1. I would like to commit it today to have it in
> >> > > 6.4M2. I
> >> > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > done a lot of refactoring on the LESS module (with a better
> >> > > > > > > cache
> >> > > > > system
> >> > > > > > > among other things) that I don't want to commit in a release
> >> > > candidate.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > --
> [email protected]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
