On 18 Sep 2015 at 12:15:19, Jean SIMARD ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> > > On 18/09/2015 12:08, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Jean, > > > > On 18 Sep 2015 at 12:05:22, Jean SIMARD > > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Check definition 3 of https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/enfant > > > > "(Par extension) Descendant direct et indirect. > > Nous sommes tous enfants d’Adam.” > Yep, and also You said “yep" but when you said “it's **only** about immediate descendant, **not** about grand-children.” then you didn’t agree obviously. So it’s good you changed your mind! :) > 2. Fils ou fille, de tout âge, par relation au père et à la mère, ou à > l’un des deux seulement. > > So the meaning of "enfant" depends on the context and can be used in > both cases (only immediate childrens or all the descendants). Just > wanted to say to be careful to base a conclusion on an incomplete > information. err… I’ve mentioned this exactly in my previous answer, so I’m having a hard time to understand your point. I said: " 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. “ Am I missing something? :) Thanks -Vincent > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > > >> 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
