On 11 Dec 2014 at 14:49:18, [email protected]
([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 Dec 2014 at 14:40:31, [email protected]
> ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> BTW on a different but related topic we will need in the future to have some
> metadata to let the user specify what syntax he’s using when filling the
> context of a text area. The need is double:
> - let the user decide the syntax of the content he’s entering
> - let the developer of the xproperty decide what syntaxes are supported (to
> limit the list of proposed syntaxes to the user)
Note: There’s a problem with my logic: the XDOM is not meant to be a generic
representation of any syntax… Its done for textual content only (heading,
section, paragraphs, words, etc) so it’s not well adapted to any kind of
syntax… So it works for textarea supposed to represent text only...
Thanks
-Vincent
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> > > 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
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
