Paul, your comment makes me think about https://xkcd.com/927/ :)
Now, as far as I can see, all the previous attempts where made by individuals. Nothing have been really discussed and designed by the whole team. Which is why I believe this new attempt could be the good one. Moreover, Vincent is not starting form scratch but on the Fabio's project. We only need to make some improvements on it. About my expectations: * I need a format that gives the same result when I export my content after having imported it (bijection). * I would prefer having it respecting the Nested Page hierarchy (ie: no space concept). * Easy to edit with whatever text editor. Maybe using a correct suffix to enable the syntax highlighting easily: for example I usually edit my content inside a file holding the ".vm" extension so my editor knows I will write some Velocity code in it. I never write code from scratch in my file system. But if I had to, I suppose the hierarchy that Vincent suggests would be too complex. It might be a problem for the developers who have written XFF and the NodeJs tools which have code to be imported in XWiki, but does not have output filter now. Thanks, 2016-08-27 11:38 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol <[email protected]>: > > > On 27 Aug 2016, at 11:15, Paul Libbrecht <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Vincent Massol wrote: > >> I think a first step is agreeing on the best representation and one we > would agree on. > > Allow me a process comment: I think that this is the right way to start > > yet another representation project, it would be the fifth project. > > Sure but that’s my right! Why would you be allowed to do that (and even > complained when I told you that one option for you would have been to > continue the existing XFF work!) and not me? :) lol > > Now what you say is not true either. I’m not starting from scratch > (contrary to you - I don’t remember seeing a mail from you explaining why > the existing solutions did not work for you and with precise details and > why you’ve started a new project based on xinclude). I’ve taken xwikifs and > tried to build on it. > > I’ve taken the time (did you?) to: > - analyze all the solution I’ve found (see my other mails) > - mention the limitation and problems of each (see my other mails) > > TBH I’m quite disappointed for your lack of consideration. You started a > mail thread and I spent a lot of hours yesterday (and a lot of off work > hours too) to catch up on the topic… We just have a different approach. > Your approach is NIH (and FTR I’m not against NIH). My approach is to > analyze all the work that was already done and see their limitations and > what more we’d need. > > Now as I mentioned already (did you take the time to read the mails I sent > yesterday? :)) I don’t see your solution as a competitor to the other > projects. So don’t worry. BTW would be nice if you could answer the > proposals I’ve made to try to fix your solution which doesn’t work well > enough ATM for round-tripping (basic need of the xwiki dev team). > > > Here, > > we want to find something more conclusive, or? > > “we”: I don’t know. I speak only for myself. > > > I find it more important that people express their: > > - experience > > - expectations > > - disappointments > > ...of the current representations of XWiki content and code stores. > > So you clearly haven’t read the mails I sent yesterday because this is > exactly what I’ve done… > > Now nothing is exclusive. We do need a common agreed FS representation > anyway for the future. It doesn’t prevent people from expressing their > opinions on the 3 points you mention above. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
