In the XPath terminology for example, children are immediate descendant of a node. The grand-children and grand-grand-children (etc.) are called descendants.
http://www.w3schools.com/xsl/xpath_nodes.asp My 2cts. PS: And in French, when you say "ce sont les enfants de M. Truc", it's only about immediate descendant, not about grand-children. On 18/09/2015 12:00, [email protected] wrote: > > > 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 > -- Jean Simard [email protected] Research engineer at XWiki SAS http://www.xwiki.com Committer on the XWiki.org project http://www.xwiki.org _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
