On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:51:21, Marius Dumitru Florea ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:27:33, Marius Dumitru Florea > > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) > > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru > >> > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > >> > > >> >> With the introduction of Nested Spaces / Nested Documents, we find > >> >> ourselves having to expand our terminology to accommodate the tree-like > >> >> structure of spaces/documents that we are managing. > >> >> > >> >> IMO, we have started going in the wrong direction with using standard > >> >> tree > >> >> terminology directly in XWiki's UI, introducing new terms that simple > >> >> users > >> >> could be easily confused by or overwhelmed (this adding to the already > >> >> existing ones). > >> >> > >> >> The specific issue I have in mind is how do we refer child entities for > >> >> each concept (wiki, space, page) and how does this scale when the > >> >> hierarchy > >> >> increases. > >> >> > >> >> What I propose is that we Keep It SSimple (*™*) :) and just use the > >> >> "sub" > >> >> prefix for the concept at hand. > >> >> > >> >> Examples: > >> >> * wiki -> subwiki (here we can continue using "wiki", as discussed > >> >> previously [1], since we don`t actually support nested wikis yet, but if > >> >> "subwiki" is used in a conversation it still makes perfect sense) > >> >> * space -> subspace [2] > >> >> * page -> subpage [3] > >> >> > >> >> The problem with the term "child", as pointed out by Marius in an > >> >> offline > >> >> chat, has indeed the issue that it can only be applied correctly for > >> >> first > >> >> level descendants, after which it becomes inaccurate, since starting > >> >> with > >> >> the second level the term "descendant" is more appropriate. > >> > > >> > >> > I’m not sure about this. I think Children could be used generically to > >> > mean any level of Children but would need to be checked. > >> > >> If you have A.B.C: > >> > >> * the "Children" viewer (live table) will show "B, C" for A > > > > I think right now it also shows A but this could be fixed. > > > >> * the "Siblings" viewer (live table) will show only "B" (or nothing?) for B > > > > > There’s no sibling for C in your definition. > > Yes, I know what siblings are :) but I said "for B" not "for C". > > > > > If you had: > > A.B.C > > A.B.D > > A.E > > > > Then the sibling for A.B.C would be A.B.D. Thus if you’re on A.B.C and ask > > for Sibling you’ll see D in the LT. > > > > > If you’re on A.B and ask for siblings you’ll see only E (and not E, C, D > > since C and D are not siblings of A.B). > > So you don't think that the statement > > "E and C are both children of A but they are not siblings because they > don't have he same parent" > > is confusing? I guess it depends how you consider Children. If you consider it to mean Children, grand-children, grand-grand-children, etc and use it as a general means, I guess it’s fine. I don’t know if this is acceptable in English or not. What I know is that if you say “Enfants” in French it can mean either immediate Children or all the children in the hierarchy (grand-children, grand-grand-children). Said differently, I have the feeling it’s better to have a More Actions menu entry named “Children” than having one named “Descendants” because I feel Children is a term more used. Thanks -Vincent > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > >> So B and C are both children of A but are not siblings. That can be > >> confusing. You need the tree view to see the actual hierarchy. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Marius > >> > >> >> > >> >> All of this becomes unnecessarily complicated and, IMO, we should avoid > >> >> dealing with it by using the "sub" prefix which is much easier to grasp > >> >> and > >> >> accept. > >> >> > >> >> On a similar note, I also find the term "nested" to be a bit > >> >> unnecessarily > >> >> complicated, specially for non-technical and non-english native users. > >> >> > >> >> WDYT? > >> > > >> > I don’t like the “Sub" terminology because it’s incomplete. It’s not > >> > complete because you still need words for Parents, Siblings, Root, etc. > >> > > >> > I'd much prefer to use a standard Tree terminology: > >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure)#Terminologies_used_in_Trees > >> > > >> > BTW Terminal Page could be replaced by Leaf Page if we wanted too but > >> > maybe that’s too technical? > >> > > >> > I’d be ok to replace subwiki by Child Wiki/Children Wikis to be > >> > consistent. > >> > > >> > So overall I find Child/Children, Parent, and Siblings very easy to > >> > understand by any simple user. I find that using Sub, Parent, Siblings > >> > is not better (and it would certainly not replace Sibling). > >> > > >> > WDYT? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > -Vincent > >> > > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> Eduard > >> >> > >> >> ---------- > >> >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/cehvpds5qmljq5f7 > >> >> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspace > >> >> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpage > >> > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
