On 11 Dec 2014 at 15:54:52, Thomas Mortagne
([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> Guillaume is about to introduce a way to indicate what is the content, I
> would suggest to name this field in something more generic than pre
> processor (for example content type)
Yes, this is what I suggested :)
> and we can add more stuff to that list
> later the default staying none. Vincent can add wiki to that list if he
> really wants it would stay an optional type and everyone is happy IMO.
Actually I don’t want wiki! See my latest answers where I explained better what
I had in mind than in the first reply.
Thanks
-Vincent
> Le 11 déc. 2014 15:06, "[email protected]" a écrit :
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
