Proposal for Macro inline edition

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
35 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
Yeah I know, too many answer mails...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:28 PM Thomas Mortagne
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello everyone,
> > >>
> > >> as a follow up of this proposal and the discussion we had, I just created
> > >> the following design proposal:
> > >>
> > >> https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/MacroInlineEditingContent/
> > >>
> > >> Let me know what you think about it.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Regarding the Content Descriptor, which Syntax(es) will activate the inline
> > > editing of the macro content? I'm asking because the Syntax of the content
> > > is not the most important part. The most important part for the WYSIWYG
> > > editor is to know if the macro code outputs the macro content without
> > > transforming it. Without this it cannot enable inline editing. If the macro
> > > output is rendered without modifications then the WYSIWYG editor can enable
> > > inline editing but it needs to know in which Syntax to convert the HTML
> > > produced while editing inline. So to summarize:
> > >
> > > * First the WYSIWYG editor needs to know if the macro content is rendered
> > > without modifications
> > > * then the WYSIWYG editor needs to know the target Syntax to which to
> > > convert the HTML
> > >
> >
> > The WYSIWYG editor will know if it's editable if it exists a parser and
> > a renderer for this syntax.
>
> You are mixing different things here:
> * a macro which can be edited with A WYSIWYG for example in the model macro form
> * a macro content which IS NOT TRANSFORMED BY THE MACRO and so can be
> edited inline
>
> > So the target syntax is the given macro syntax.

There is several things I don't like about Syntax:

* You assume that the macro content is a XWiki Rendering content
(since that's what Syntax is for) with potential parser/renderer but
that's not the case for many (if not most) macros
* Type is more consistent with parameters and there is no reason to
have two systems for the same need: describe what kind of data and
have a reusable set of displayers for each type of data. Also it's not
just about macro parameters we use the same system in other places
(Filter input/output parameters for example).
* Even if macro content was only about rendering content syntax is not
very well suited to differentiate between content transformed by the
macro (takes wiki content as input data but produce something which
may have nothing to do with it) and content not transformed by the
macro (just parse/render the content with stuff around it) since it
has nothing to do with the actual content syntax.

> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Simon
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> > >>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
> > >>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Cool :) We've been waiting for a long time about this feature! See
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> below.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> content
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> or a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> content
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> and/or parameters should be edited.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> which
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> currently produces this code:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
> > >>>>>>>>>>>      <div class="title">
> > >>>>>>>>>>>        <span class="icon info"></span>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>        some title
> > >>>>>>>>>>>      </div>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>      Some content
> > >>>>>>>>>>> </div>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> specific class around the content to tell the editor it should only
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> allow
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> editing this content, e.g.:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
> > >>>>>>>>>>>      <div class="title">
> > >>>>>>>>>>>        <span class="icon info"></span>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>        some title
> > >>>>>>>>>>>      </div>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>      <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> </div>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> By “users”, I guess you mean macro developers?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Here yes it's the macro developer. I'll try to be more specific in
> > >>>>>>>>> my
> > >>>>>>>>> answers.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> So if I understand you well, you’re not planning to add a
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> getter/setters to the Macro descriptor, to tell that the macro
> > >>>>>>>> content
> > >>>>>>>> contains wiki markup and that it should be editable in the WYSIWYG
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> editor?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Actually we're planning to add the getter/setter **and** the
> > >>>>>>>>> specific
> > >>>>>>>>> markup for the editor. The getter/setter (which I called the flag
> > >>>>>>>>> above), is here to specify that the macro will contain inline
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> editable
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> content in WYSIWYG. The markup will specify *where* exactly is this
> > >>>>>>>>> content, and what shouldn't be changed.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> About that "flag", you seems to plan a boolean but I feel something
> > >>>>>>>> more generic that we want to introduce since a long time would be
> > >>>>>>>> better: make the content descriptor return a type like parameters
> > >>>>>>>> descriptors do. The kind of inline editing you have in mind right now
> > >>>>>>>> would then be associated to the type List<Block> for example (or
> > >>>>>>>> CompositeBlock
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> or some another type if we want to differentiate
> > >>>>>>>> between wiki content modified by the macro and wiki content not
> > >>>>>>>> modified by the macro
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> We need this differentiation.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Sure but as I said you can differentiate using types too and we need
> > >>>>>> content types for other use cases so it's a good occasion. Also when
> > >>>>>> you use the type you can differentiate between wiki content and HTML
> > >>>>>> content and support inline editing of HTML macro in the same system
> > >>>>>> for example.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm not against your proposal. It's a bit more work though, to define
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> types, but I suppose it's worth the effort.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> It's not much more work, just need to define one type for the current
> > >>> use case ("final" wiki content). Other types can come later when
> > >>> implementing support for them.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> So if I follow the idea would be to use this type defined for the
> > >>>> content descriptor to specify the behaviour of the editor: e.g. if the
> > >>>> content descriptor is defined as an html content, then the html editor
> > >>>> would be used, if it's defined as an inline content, then it would be an
> > >>>> editor with limitation to clean html and line returns, etc.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Still it does not change the need to specify which elements of the
> > >>>> content are editable, right?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Sure but that's the "second step". I only talked about replacing the
> > >>> flag you defined as the first step by a more generic type :)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Moreover I've the feeling that the parameters are already not supporting
> > >>>> the different types for edition (e.g. a boolean parameter only shows a
> > >>>> text input). So wouldn't it be a priority before putting a type on the
> > >>>> content descriptor itself?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The WYSIWYG does miss a lot of displayers and we need work on that for
> > >>> sure but:
> > >>> * you get a checkbox for boolean properties so the type is taken into
> > >>> account
> > >>> * having more specific displayers is not a requirement for working on
> > >>> inline wiki editing
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> ). The other types would be used in other use
> > >>>>>>>> cases (syntax coloring for scripts, json editor, etc.). The idea of
> > >>>>>>>> using Java type is to be consistent with parameters and reuse
> > >>>>>>>> existing
> > >>>>>>>> the displayers in the macro modal window for example but it can cover
> > >>>>>>>> this need too.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I guess that if the flag is set and the markup is not present, then
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> entire content is considered as editable.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Is that because you want to be finer-grained and have macro content
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> which can have parts editable with the WYSIWYG while having other
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> parts of
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> the content not editable (for example)?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> It's exactly why yes. On my example, the macro user won't be able to
> > >>>>>>>>> change the content of the title.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Technically Macros don’t generate HTML, only XDOM. So in order to
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> make
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> it easier for java macro developers, I’d suggest to introduce some new
> > >>>>>>>> wrapping Block to indicate this information. We might need something
> > >>>>>>>> similar for wiki macros too, to make it more reusable and typed.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'd need to look more on wrapping block but after a quick overlook
> > >>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>> seems to make sense indeed.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> to ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> a parameter named foo:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> parameter
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> value</span>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> What’s your idea for editing parameters requiring WYSIWYG? How do
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> present them in the UI? Do you have any mockup?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I don't have any mockup right now. FTM I see it like this:
> > >>>>>>>>>      - when creating the macro, the current text input are improved
> > >>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>> the CKEditor for the editable content/parameters
> > >>>>>>>>>      - when editing the macro, you stay in the main editor UI, but
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> content is now editable instead of opening back the macro UI
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> such
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> as:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
> > >>>>>>>> parameter</span></span>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> So:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>      1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "editable-content"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Small details, there’s already the “contenteditable” notion that
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> exists (see https://developer.mozilla.org/
> > >>>>>>>> fr/docs/Web/HTML/Attributs_
> > >>>>>>>> universels/contenteditable) so “editable-content” is quite close.
> > >>>>>>>> Maybe
> > >>>>>>>> we should have something more xwiki-specific? or more
> > >>>>>>>> WYSIWYG-specific?
> > >>>>>>>> Like “editable-wysiwyg” or “wysiwyg-editable”.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'm open to suggestion on this one. "wysiwyg-editable" could be
> > >>>>>>>>> nice.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> My main comment is what I put above: how do we make it easy for
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> macro
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> developers to specify this information.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>      2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> editing of parameters?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Before answering that part, I would need to understand what’s the
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> proposal in term of UI.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Note that the main use case is for content but it’s nice if you can
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> also support parameters. Now, accepting markup in parameters is not
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> really
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> a great use case IMO and is usually a design issue so I’m not sure we
> > >>>>>>>> should spend that much time in supporting that. WDYT?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> We just discuss about macro parameters with Ludovic and apparently
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> they
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> cannot support line returns, so we might have to use a custom editor
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> those.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The only macro parameter I know ATM that supports markup is the
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> “title” param of the {{box}} macro and I think it’s badly designed.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Note:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> if you check the recent {{figure}} macro, I implemented this need by
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> having
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> a {{figureCaption}} nested macro.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> BTW this raises a question, will you support WYSIWYG editing of
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> nested
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> macros?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Not for the moment.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Simon
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>>>>>>> -Vincent
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Simon
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> [snip]
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
> > >>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Simon Urli
> > >>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> > >>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> Simon Urli
> > >> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Simon Urli
> > Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> > [hidden email]
> > More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne



--
Thomas Mortagne
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Simon Urli


On 9/12/18 5:45 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:

> Yeah I know, too many answer mails...
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:28 PM Thomas Mortagne
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> as a follow up of this proposal and the discussion we had, I just created
>>>>> the following design proposal:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/MacroInlineEditingContent/
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know what you think about it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the Content Descriptor, which Syntax(es) will activate the inline
>>>> editing of the macro content? I'm asking because the Syntax of the content
>>>> is not the most important part. The most important part for the WYSIWYG
>>>> editor is to know if the macro code outputs the macro content without
>>>> transforming it. Without this it cannot enable inline editing. If the macro
>>>> output is rendered without modifications then the WYSIWYG editor can enable
>>>> inline editing but it needs to know in which Syntax to convert the HTML
>>>> produced while editing inline. So to summarize:
>>>>
>>>> * First the WYSIWYG editor needs to know if the macro content is rendered
>>>> without modifications
>>>> * then the WYSIWYG editor needs to know the target Syntax to which to
>>>> convert the HTML
>>>>
>>>
>>> The WYSIWYG editor will know if it's editable if it exists a parser and
>>> a renderer for this syntax.
>>
>> You are mixing different things here:
>> * a macro which can be edited with A WYSIWYG for example in the model macro form
>> * a macro content which IS NOT TRANSFORMED BY THE MACRO and so can be
>> edited inline
>>


>>> So the target syntax is the given macro syntax.
>
> There is several things I don't like about Syntax:
>
> * You assume that the macro content is a XWiki Rendering content
> (since that's what Syntax is for) with potential parser/renderer but
> that's not the case for many (if not most) macros

No, the idea is to have something extensible: a macro can add a syntax,
and on the future, specify its own custom code to be used as an editor.
Without specifying any parser/renderer then.

> * Type is more consistent with parameters and there is no reason to
> have two systems for the same need: describe what kind of data and
> have a reusable set of displayers for each type of data. Also it's not
> just about macro parameters we use the same system in other places
> (Filter input/output parameters for example).

Could you elaborate how do you see things with type? Should we create a
different type for each macro content then? And we would have to create
the proper types for plain/html/wiki content?

> * Even if macro content was only about rendering content syntax is not
> very well suited to differentiate between content transformed by the
> macro (takes wiki content as input data but produce something which
> may have nothing to do with it) and content not transformed by the
> macro (just parse/render the content with stuff around it) since it
> has nothing to do with the actual content syntax.

As I said, the idea is to allow user to be able to specify their own
editor.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool :) We've been waiting for a long time about this feature! See
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> below.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and/or parameters should be edited.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> currently produces this code:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <div class="title">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <span class="icon info"></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         some title
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Some content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific class around the content to tell the editor it should only
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> editing this content, e.g.:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <div class="title">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <span class="icon info"></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         some title
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By “users”, I guess you mean macro developers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here yes it's the macro developer. I'll try to be more specific in
>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>> answers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I understand you well, you’re not planning to add a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> getter/setters to the Macro descriptor, to tell that the macro
>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>>> contains wiki markup and that it should be editable in the WYSIWYG
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> editor?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually we're planning to add the getter/setter **and** the
>>>>>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>>>>>> markup for the editor. The getter/setter (which I called the flag
>>>>>>>>>>>> above), is here to specify that the macro will contain inline
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> editable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> content in WYSIWYG. The markup will specify *where* exactly is this
>>>>>>>>>>>> content, and what shouldn't be changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> About that "flag", you seems to plan a boolean but I feel something
>>>>>>>>>>> more generic that we want to introduce since a long time would be
>>>>>>>>>>> better: make the content descriptor return a type like parameters
>>>>>>>>>>> descriptors do. The kind of inline editing you have in mind right now
>>>>>>>>>>> would then be associated to the type List<Block> for example (or
>>>>>>>>>>> CompositeBlock
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or some another type if we want to differentiate
>>>>>>>>>>> between wiki content modified by the macro and wiki content not
>>>>>>>>>>> modified by the macro
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We need this differentiation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure but as I said you can differentiate using types too and we need
>>>>>>>>> content types for other use cases so it's a good occasion. Also when
>>>>>>>>> you use the type you can differentiate between wiki content and HTML
>>>>>>>>> content and support inline editing of HTML macro in the same system
>>>>>>>>> for example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not against your proposal. It's a bit more work though, to define
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> types, but I suppose it's worth the effort.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not much more work, just need to define one type for the current
>>>>>> use case ("final" wiki content). Other types can come later when
>>>>>> implementing support for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if I follow the idea would be to use this type defined for the
>>>>>>> content descriptor to specify the behaviour of the editor: e.g. if the
>>>>>>> content descriptor is defined as an html content, then the html editor
>>>>>>> would be used, if it's defined as an inline content, then it would be an
>>>>>>> editor with limitation to clean html and line returns, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still it does not change the need to specify which elements of the
>>>>>>> content are editable, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure but that's the "second step". I only talked about replacing the
>>>>>> flag you defined as the first step by a more generic type :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moreover I've the feeling that the parameters are already not supporting
>>>>>>> the different types for edition (e.g. a boolean parameter only shows a
>>>>>>> text input). So wouldn't it be a priority before putting a type on the
>>>>>>> content descriptor itself?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The WYSIWYG does miss a lot of displayers and we need work on that for
>>>>>> sure but:
>>>>>> * you get a checkbox for boolean properties so the type is taken into
>>>>>> account
>>>>>> * having more specific displayers is not a requirement for working on
>>>>>> inline wiki editing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ). The other types would be used in other use
>>>>>>>>>>> cases (syntax coloring for scripts, json editor, etc.). The idea of
>>>>>>>>>>> using Java type is to be consistent with parameters and reuse
>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>> the displayers in the macro modal window for example but it can cover
>>>>>>>>>>> this need too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess that if the flag is set and the markup is not present, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> entire content is considered as editable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that because you want to be finer-grained and have macro content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> which can have parts editable with the WYSIWYG while having other
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> parts of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the content not editable (for example)?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's exactly why yes. On my example, the macro user won't be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>> change the content of the title.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically Macros don’t generate HTML, only XDOM. So in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it easier for java macro developers, I’d suggest to introduce some new
>>>>>>>>>>> wrapping Block to indicate this information. We might need something
>>>>>>>>>>> similar for wiki macros too, to make it more reusable and typed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd need to look more on wrapping block but after a quick overlook
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to make sense indeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a parameter named foo:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> value</span>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s your idea for editing parameters requiring WYSIWYG? How do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> present them in the UI? Do you have any mockup?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any mockup right now. FTM I see it like this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>       - when creating the macro, the current text input are improved
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the CKEditor for the editable content/parameters
>>>>>>>>>>>>       - when editing the macro, you stay in the main editor UI, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> content is now editable instead of opening back the macro UI
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
>>>>>>>>>>> parameter</span></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "editable-content"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Small details, there’s already the “contenteditable” notion that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> exists (see https://developer.mozilla.org/
>>>>>>>>>>> fr/docs/Web/HTML/Attributs_
>>>>>>>>>>> universels/contenteditable) so “editable-content” is quite close.
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>> we should have something more xwiki-specific? or more
>>>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG-specific?
>>>>>>>>>>> Like “editable-wysiwyg” or “wysiwyg-editable”.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm open to suggestion on this one. "wysiwyg-editable" could be
>>>>>>>>>>>> nice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My main comment is what I put above: how do we make it easy for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> macro
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> developers to specify this information.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>       2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> editing of parameters?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before answering that part, I would need to understand what’s the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal in term of UI.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the main use case is for content but it’s nice if you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> also support parameters. Now, accepting markup in parameters is not
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a great use case IMO and is usually a design issue so I’m not sure we
>>>>>>>>>>> should spend that much time in supporting that. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We just discuss about macro parameters with Ludovic and apparently
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cannot support line returns, so we might have to use a custom editor
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> those.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only macro parameter I know ATM that supports markup is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> “title” param of the {{box}} macro and I think it’s badly designed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if you check the recent {{figure}} macro, I implemented this need by
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a {{figureCaption}} nested macro.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW this raises a question, will you support WYSIWYG editing of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nested
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> macros?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Urli
>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>> [hidden email]
>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Mortagne
>
>
>

--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
[hidden email]
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:56 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 9/12/18 5:45 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> > Yeah I know, too many answer mails...
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:28 PM Thomas Mortagne
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> as a follow up of this proposal and the discussion we had, I just created
> >>>>> the following design proposal:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/MacroInlineEditingContent/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let me know what you think about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regarding the Content Descriptor, which Syntax(es) will activate the inline
> >>>> editing of the macro content? I'm asking because the Syntax of the content
> >>>> is not the most important part. The most important part for the WYSIWYG
> >>>> editor is to know if the macro code outputs the macro content without
> >>>> transforming it. Without this it cannot enable inline editing. If the macro
> >>>> output is rendered without modifications then the WYSIWYG editor can enable
> >>>> inline editing but it needs to know in which Syntax to convert the HTML
> >>>> produced while editing inline. So to summarize:
> >>>>
> >>>> * First the WYSIWYG editor needs to know if the macro content is rendered
> >>>> without modifications
> >>>> * then the WYSIWYG editor needs to know the target Syntax to which to
> >>>> convert the HTML
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The WYSIWYG editor will know if it's editable if it exists a parser and
> >>> a renderer for this syntax.
> >>
> >> You are mixing different things here:
> >> * a macro which can be edited with A WYSIWYG for example in the model macro form
> >> * a macro content which IS NOT TRANSFORMED BY THE MACRO and so can be
> >> edited inline
> >>
>
>
> >>> So the target syntax is the given macro syntax.
> >
> > There is several things I don't like about Syntax:
> >
> > * You assume that the macro content is a XWiki Rendering content
> > (since that's what Syntax is for) with potential parser/renderer but
> > that's not the case for many (if not most) macros
>
> No, the idea is to have something extensible: a macro can add a syntax,
> and on the future, specify its own custom code to be used as an editor.
> Without specifying any parser/renderer then.

The org.xwiki.rendering.syntax.Syntax class "Represents a wiki syntax
that the user can use to enter wiki content" according to its
definition. If what you want is not related to a content that can be
represented as XDOM then you should introduce a new type, it will also
avoid conflicting with existing Syntax which may define something very
different that what a Macro would like to express.

>
> > * Type is more consistent with parameters and there is no reason to
> > have two systems for the same need: describe what kind of data and
> > have a reusable set of displayers for each type of data. Also it's not
> > just about macro parameters we use the same system in other places
> > (Filter input/output parameters for example).
>
> Could you elaborate how do you see things with type? Should we create a
> different type for each macro content then? And we would have to create
> the proper types for plain/html/wiki content?

Here are the types you need right now:

* plain/undefined content: java.lang.String (the default since that's
the current behavior)
* wiki content for which the syntax depends on the location of the
macro: as I said in a previous mail we have existing types for this
already, Block, List<XDOM> or CompositeBlock (possibly XDOM for macros
which can only be used in a standalone context if we want to express
in the type even if it duplicates Macro#supportsInlineMode()) express
it well already. But since we also need "not transformed wiki content"
for inline editing in the WYSIWYG we could introduce a new type to
express that, something like "FinalCompositeBlock extends
CompositeBlock" or some other name (we could arbitrary decide that
CompositeBlock means final but I don't think it would be clear enough)

Here are a few example for the future:

* template (as defined by
https://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Template+Module#HContent):
org.xwiki.template.TemplateContent
* html: I can't think of anything clean enough so probably a new type yes
* velocity, groovy, python, etc.: new types but we can still make
generic code life a bit easier (at least on Java side) with something
like a new "VelocityContent" type annotated with
@ScriptContent("velocity") for example
* specific wiki content (I don't think we have the use case right now
but never knows): same logic as for script contents I guess
* <many other types used in the parameters already>

All that could be expressed with names instead of Java types but the
point of using Types is that:
* well that's made to define type of stuff after all :)
* more importantly we can use the same system for macro parameters,
filter properties and content (and other stuff in the future) to find
out a suitable displayer/editor. For example some macro have the need
to take wiki content as parameter too.

>
> > * Even if macro content was only about rendering content syntax is not
> > very well suited to differentiate between content transformed by the
> > macro (takes wiki content as input data but produce something which
> > may have nothing to do with it) and content not transformed by the
> > macro (just parse/render the content with stuff around it) since it
> > has nothing to do with the actual content syntax.
>
> As I said, the idea is to allow user to be able to specify their own
> editor.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Simon
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
> >>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool :) We've been waiting for a long time about this feature! See
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> below.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> content
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> or a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> content
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and/or parameters should be edited.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> currently produces this code:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <div class="title">
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <span class="icon info"></span>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>         some title
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>       </div>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Some content
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> specific class around the content to tell the editor it should only
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> allow
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> editing this content, e.g.:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <div class="title">
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <span class="icon info"></span>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>         some title
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>       </div>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> By “users”, I guess you mean macro developers?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here yes it's the macro developer. I'll try to be more specific in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>>> answers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I understand you well, you’re not planning to add a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> getter/setters to the Macro descriptor, to tell that the macro
> >>>>>>>>>>> content
> >>>>>>>>>>> contains wiki markup and that it should be editable in the WYSIWYG
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> editor?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually we're planning to add the getter/setter **and** the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> specific
> >>>>>>>>>>>> markup for the editor. The getter/setter (which I called the flag
> >>>>>>>>>>>> above), is here to specify that the macro will contain inline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> editable
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> content in WYSIWYG. The markup will specify *where* exactly is this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> content, and what shouldn't be changed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> About that "flag", you seems to plan a boolean but I feel something
> >>>>>>>>>>> more generic that we want to introduce since a long time would be
> >>>>>>>>>>> better: make the content descriptor return a type like parameters
> >>>>>>>>>>> descriptors do. The kind of inline editing you have in mind right now
> >>>>>>>>>>> would then be associated to the type List<Block> for example (or
> >>>>>>>>>>> CompositeBlock
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> or some another type if we want to differentiate
> >>>>>>>>>>> between wiki content modified by the macro and wiki content not
> >>>>>>>>>>> modified by the macro
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We need this differentiation.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sure but as I said you can differentiate using types too and we need
> >>>>>>>>> content types for other use cases so it's a good occasion. Also when
> >>>>>>>>> you use the type you can differentiate between wiki content and HTML
> >>>>>>>>> content and support inline editing of HTML macro in the same system
> >>>>>>>>> for example.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm not against your proposal. It's a bit more work though, to define
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> types, but I suppose it's worth the effort.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not much more work, just need to define one type for the current
> >>>>>> use case ("final" wiki content). Other types can come later when
> >>>>>> implementing support for them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So if I follow the idea would be to use this type defined for the
> >>>>>>> content descriptor to specify the behaviour of the editor: e.g. if the
> >>>>>>> content descriptor is defined as an html content, then the html editor
> >>>>>>> would be used, if it's defined as an inline content, then it would be an
> >>>>>>> editor with limitation to clean html and line returns, etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Still it does not change the need to specify which elements of the
> >>>>>>> content are editable, right?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure but that's the "second step". I only talked about replacing the
> >>>>>> flag you defined as the first step by a more generic type :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moreover I've the feeling that the parameters are already not supporting
> >>>>>>> the different types for edition (e.g. a boolean parameter only shows a
> >>>>>>> text input). So wouldn't it be a priority before putting a type on the
> >>>>>>> content descriptor itself?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The WYSIWYG does miss a lot of displayers and we need work on that for
> >>>>>> sure but:
> >>>>>> * you get a checkbox for boolean properties so the type is taken into
> >>>>>> account
> >>>>>> * having more specific displayers is not a requirement for working on
> >>>>>> inline wiki editing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ). The other types would be used in other use
> >>>>>>>>>>> cases (syntax coloring for scripts, json editor, etc.). The idea of
> >>>>>>>>>>> using Java type is to be consistent with parameters and reuse
> >>>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>> the displayers in the macro modal window for example but it can cover
> >>>>>>>>>>> this need too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess that if the flag is set and the markup is not present, then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> entire content is considered as editable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that because you want to be finer-grained and have macro content
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which can have parts editable with the WYSIWYG while having other
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> parts of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the content not editable (for example)?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's exactly why yes. On my example, the macro user won't be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> change the content of the title.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically Macros don’t generate HTML, only XDOM. So in order to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> it easier for java macro developers, I’d suggest to introduce some new
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrapping Block to indicate this information. We might need something
> >>>>>>>>>>> similar for wiki macros too, to make it more reusable and typed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd need to look more on wrapping block but after a quick overlook
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> seems to make sense indeed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> to ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> a parameter named foo:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> value</span>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s your idea for editing parameters requiring WYSIWYG? How do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> present them in the UI? Do you have any mockup?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any mockup right now. FTM I see it like this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>       - when creating the macro, the current text input are improved
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the CKEditor for the editable content/parameters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>       - when editing the macro, you stay in the main editor UI, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> content is now editable instead of opening back the macro UI
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> as:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
> >>>>>>>>>>> parameter</span></span>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>       1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "editable-content"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Small details, there’s already the “contenteditable” notion that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exists (see https://developer.mozilla.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>> fr/docs/Web/HTML/Attributs_
> >>>>>>>>>>> universels/contenteditable) so “editable-content” is quite close.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe
> >>>>>>>>>>> we should have something more xwiki-specific? or more
> >>>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG-specific?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Like “editable-wysiwyg” or “wysiwyg-editable”.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm open to suggestion on this one. "wysiwyg-editable" could be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> nice.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My main comment is what I put above: how do we make it easy for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> macro
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> developers to specify this information.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>       2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> editing of parameters?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before answering that part, I would need to understand what’s the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> proposal in term of UI.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the main use case is for content but it’s nice if you can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> also support parameters. Now, accepting markup in parameters is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> a great use case IMO and is usually a design issue so I’m not sure we
> >>>>>>>>>>> should spend that much time in supporting that. WDYT?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We just discuss about macro parameters with Ludovic and apparently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> cannot support line returns, so we might have to use a custom editor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> those.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The only macro parameter I know ATM that supports markup is the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> “title” param of the {{box}} macro and I think it’s badly designed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Note:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> if you check the recent {{figure}} macro, I implemented this need by
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> having
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> a {{figureCaption}} nested macro.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW this raises a question, will you support WYSIWYG editing of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> nested
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> macros?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not for the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vincent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Simon Urli
> >>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Simon Urli
> >>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Simon Urli
> >>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thomas Mortagne
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> [hidden email]
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com



--
Thomas Mortagne
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Simon Urli
Hi everyone,

I just edited the design page of the proposal after the meeting we had
yesterday with Vincent, Thomas and Marius:
https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/MacroInlineEditingContent/

To quickly sum up the main parts are:
   - we allow to specify a type in the ContentDescriptor of the macro
   - we define a new MetaDataBlock for Java macro to specify which part
of the content is editable
   - we document a new attribute for GroupBlock/FormatBlock to specify
which part of the content is editable in WikiMacro

Thanks again for your feedbacks!
Simon

On 9/12/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:56 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/12/18 5:45 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>> Yeah I know, too many answer mails...
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:28 PM Thomas Mortagne
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as a follow up of this proposal and the discussion we had, I just created
>>>>>>> the following design proposal:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/MacroInlineEditingContent/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me know what you think about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding the Content Descriptor, which Syntax(es) will activate the inline
>>>>>> editing of the macro content? I'm asking because the Syntax of the content
>>>>>> is not the most important part. The most important part for the WYSIWYG
>>>>>> editor is to know if the macro code outputs the macro content without
>>>>>> transforming it. Without this it cannot enable inline editing. If the macro
>>>>>> output is rendered without modifications then the WYSIWYG editor can enable
>>>>>> inline editing but it needs to know in which Syntax to convert the HTML
>>>>>> produced while editing inline. So to summarize:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * First the WYSIWYG editor needs to know if the macro content is rendered
>>>>>> without modifications
>>>>>> * then the WYSIWYG editor needs to know the target Syntax to which to
>>>>>> convert the HTML
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The WYSIWYG editor will know if it's editable if it exists a parser and
>>>>> a renderer for this syntax.
>>>>
>>>> You are mixing different things here:
>>>> * a macro which can be edited with A WYSIWYG for example in the model macro form
>>>> * a macro content which IS NOT TRANSFORMED BY THE MACRO and so can be
>>>> edited inline
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>> So the target syntax is the given macro syntax.
>>>
>>> There is several things I don't like about Syntax:
>>>
>>> * You assume that the macro content is a XWiki Rendering content
>>> (since that's what Syntax is for) with potential parser/renderer but
>>> that's not the case for many (if not most) macros
>>
>> No, the idea is to have something extensible: a macro can add a syntax,
>> and on the future, specify its own custom code to be used as an editor.
>> Without specifying any parser/renderer then.
>
> The org.xwiki.rendering.syntax.Syntax class "Represents a wiki syntax
> that the user can use to enter wiki content" according to its
> definition. If what you want is not related to a content that can be
> represented as XDOM then you should introduce a new type, it will also
> avoid conflicting with existing Syntax which may define something very
> different that what a Macro would like to express.
>
>>
>>> * Type is more consistent with parameters and there is no reason to
>>> have two systems for the same need: describe what kind of data and
>>> have a reusable set of displayers for each type of data. Also it's not
>>> just about macro parameters we use the same system in other places
>>> (Filter input/output parameters for example).
>>
>> Could you elaborate how do you see things with type? Should we create a
>> different type for each macro content then? And we would have to create
>> the proper types for plain/html/wiki content?
>
> Here are the types you need right now:
>
> * plain/undefined content: java.lang.String (the default since that's
> the current behavior)
> * wiki content for which the syntax depends on the location of the
> macro: as I said in a previous mail we have existing types for this
> already, Block, List<XDOM> or CompositeBlock (possibly XDOM for macros
> which can only be used in a standalone context if we want to express
> in the type even if it duplicates Macro#supportsInlineMode()) express
> it well already. But since we also need "not transformed wiki content"
> for inline editing in the WYSIWYG we could introduce a new type to
> express that, something like "FinalCompositeBlock extends
> CompositeBlock" or some other name (we could arbitrary decide that
> CompositeBlock means final but I don't think it would be clear enough)
>
> Here are a few example for the future:
>
> * template (as defined by
> https://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Template+Module#HContent):
> org.xwiki.template.TemplateContent
> * html: I can't think of anything clean enough so probably a new type yes
> * velocity, groovy, python, etc.: new types but we can still make
> generic code life a bit easier (at least on Java side) with something
> like a new "VelocityContent" type annotated with
> @ScriptContent("velocity") for example
> * specific wiki content (I don't think we have the use case right now
> but never knows): same logic as for script contents I guess
> * <many other types used in the parameters already>
>
> All that could be expressed with names instead of Java types but the
> point of using Types is that:
> * well that's made to define type of stuff after all :)
> * more importantly we can use the same system for macro parameters,
> filter properties and content (and other stuff in the future) to find
> out a suitable displayer/editor. For example some macro have the need
> to take wiki content as parameter too.
>
>>
>>> * Even if macro content was only about rendering content syntax is not
>>> very well suited to differentiate between content transformed by the
>>> macro (takes wiki content as input data but produce something which
>>> may have nothing to do with it) and content not transformed by the
>>> macro (just parse/render the content with stuff around it) since it
>>> has nothing to do with the actual content syntax.
>>
>> As I said, the idea is to allow user to be able to specify their own
>> editor.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool :) We've been waiting for a long time about this feature! See
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> or a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and/or parameters should be edited.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> currently produces this code:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        <div class="title">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          <span class="icon info"></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          some title
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Some content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific class around the content to tell the editor it should only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> editing this content, e.g.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        <div class="title">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          <span class="icon info"></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          some title
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By “users”, I guess you mean macro developers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here yes it's the macro developer. I'll try to be more specific in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I understand you well, you’re not planning to add a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getter/setters to the Macro descriptor, to tell that the macro
>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains wiki markup and that it should be editable in the WYSIWYG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> editor?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually we're planning to add the getter/setter **and** the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markup for the editor. The getter/setter (which I called the flag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above), is here to specify that the macro will contain inline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> editable
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> content in WYSIWYG. The markup will specify *where* exactly is this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content, and what shouldn't be changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> About that "flag", you seems to plan a boolean but I feel something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more generic that we want to introduce since a long time would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> better: make the content descriptor return a type like parameters
>>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptors do. The kind of inline editing you have in mind right now
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would then be associated to the type List<Block> for example (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompositeBlock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> or some another type if we want to differentiate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between wiki content modified by the macro and wiki content not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified by the macro
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We need this differentiation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure but as I said you can differentiate using types too and we need
>>>>>>>>>>> content types for other use cases so it's a good occasion. Also when
>>>>>>>>>>> you use the type you can differentiate between wiki content and HTML
>>>>>>>>>>> content and support inline editing of HTML macro in the same system
>>>>>>>>>>> for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not against your proposal. It's a bit more work though, to define
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> types, but I suppose it's worth the effort.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not much more work, just need to define one type for the current
>>>>>>>> use case ("final" wiki content). Other types can come later when
>>>>>>>> implementing support for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So if I follow the idea would be to use this type defined for the
>>>>>>>>> content descriptor to specify the behaviour of the editor: e.g. if the
>>>>>>>>> content descriptor is defined as an html content, then the html editor
>>>>>>>>> would be used, if it's defined as an inline content, then it would be an
>>>>>>>>> editor with limitation to clean html and line returns, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still it does not change the need to specify which elements of the
>>>>>>>>> content are editable, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure but that's the "second step". I only talked about replacing the
>>>>>>>> flag you defined as the first step by a more generic type :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moreover I've the feeling that the parameters are already not supporting
>>>>>>>>> the different types for edition (e.g. a boolean parameter only shows a
>>>>>>>>> text input). So wouldn't it be a priority before putting a type on the
>>>>>>>>> content descriptor itself?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The WYSIWYG does miss a lot of displayers and we need work on that for
>>>>>>>> sure but:
>>>>>>>> * you get a checkbox for boolean properties so the type is taken into
>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>> * having more specific displayers is not a requirement for working on
>>>>>>>> inline wiki editing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ). The other types would be used in other use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases (syntax coloring for scripts, json editor, etc.). The idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Java type is to be consistent with parameters and reuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the displayers in the macro modal window for example but it can cover
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this need too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess that if the flag is set and the markup is not present, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> entire content is considered as editable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that because you want to be finer-grained and have macro content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can have parts editable with the WYSIWYG while having other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the content not editable (for example)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's exactly why yes. On my example, the macro user won't be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the content of the title.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically Macros don’t generate HTML, only XDOM. So in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it easier for java macro developers, I’d suggest to introduce some new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapping Block to indicate this information. We might need something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar for wiki macros too, to make it more reusable and typed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd need to look more on wrapping block but after a quick overlook
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to make sense indeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a parameter named foo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> value</span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s your idea for editing parameters requiring WYSIWYG? How do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> present them in the UI? Do you have any mockup?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any mockup right now. FTM I see it like this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        - when creating the macro, the current text input are improved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the CKEditor for the editable content/parameters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        - when editing the macro, you stay in the main editor UI, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content is now editable instead of opening back the macro UI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter</span></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "editable-content"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Small details, there’s already the “contenteditable” notion that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists (see https://developer.mozilla.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fr/docs/Web/HTML/Attributs_
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universels/contenteditable) so “editable-content” is quite close.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we should have something more xwiki-specific? or more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG-specific?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like “editable-wysiwyg” or “wysiwyg-editable”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm open to suggestion on this one. "wysiwyg-editable" could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My main comment is what I put above: how do we make it easy for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> macro
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> developers to specify this information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editing of parameters?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before answering that part, I would need to understand what’s the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal in term of UI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the main use case is for content but it’s nice if you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also support parameters. Now, accepting markup in parameters is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a great use case IMO and is usually a design issue so I’m not sure we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should spend that much time in supporting that. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We just discuss about macro parameters with Ludovic and apparently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot support line returns, so we might have to use a custom editor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> those.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only macro parameter I know ATM that supports markup is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “title” param of the {{box}} macro and I think it’s badly designed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> if you check the recent {{figure}} macro, I implemented this need by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a {{figureCaption}} nested macro.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW this raises a question, will you support WYSIWYG editing of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> macros?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Simon Urli
>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>> [hidden email]
>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>
>
>

--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
[hidden email]
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

vmassol
Administrator
Hi Simon and all,

After thinking about this (and not being to sleep one night for some hours about it ;)), I have the following problems with the proposal so far:
* It doesn’t address macro content types that are NOT in the current document’s syntax.
* The API is awkward since the proposal is to return a List<Block> java Type for "macros having content written in the current document’s syntax”, while other macros containing markup would need to invent their own types.

Needs:
=====

There are 2 use cases for this:

A) Dynamic macro content type.

Just giving 2 existing examples:

Example 1: {{content syntax=“markdown/1.2”}}….{{/content}}
Example 2: {{jira source=“jql | list”…}}…{{/jira}}

The content types depends on some macro parameter values in each case.

B) Fixed content type

Example: Someone contributes a new macro in xwiki-contrib named {{markdown}} and that contains a fixed markup content in syntax “markdown/1.2”.

Issues
=====

The current proposal says that macro not having content written in the current document’s syntax should implement their own content Type.

However there are several problems with that:
* It gives an uneven API: it’s not normal to not return List<Block> type for any macro having markup that can be parsed into a List<Block>.
* It means the WYSIWYG editor won’t be able to support the {{content}} or {{markdown}} macros I mentioned above which is a pity since technically it can support them when there are parsers/renderers for the syntax. Thomas mentioned (during a conf call) that we could simply add support for those special types in the WYSIWYG by hardcoding them. However that won’t work since my example with the {{markdown}} macros is about a contrib macro that doesn’t exist ATM so we cannot hardcode its support in the WYSIWYG.

Proposal
=======

Thus I really believe that we need to do 2 things:
1) Have the macro content’s getType() return the java type that can represent the content, i.e. List<Block> whenever the content contains markup that can be parsed into a List<Block> by one syntax parser. And have List<Block> simply means markup content.
2) Have the WYSIWYG be able to edit inline macros having markup content, i.e. that returns a List<Block> type, when they are written in a supported syntax (a supported syntax is simply a syntax for which there’s a parser and a renderer). Thus we need to have Macros be able to provide the Syntax to the WYSIWYG.

There are several ways to implement 2), one simple way is to introduce a SyntaxDescriptor component role:

@Role
public interface SyntaxDescriptor
{
    Syntax getSyntax(Map<String, Object> macroParameters);
}

And then have the WYSIWYG get a component instance of an implementation of SyntaxDescriptor with a hint being the macro id for example. And if none is found, default to a CurrentDocumentSyntaxDescriptor() that would return the current document’s syntax. Or something like this.

This also means that in the WYSIWYG macro dialog box, when a parameter is modified, it would call SyntaxDescriptor#getSyntax() to get the Syntax and if that syntax doesn’t have a parser/renderer, it would display the content in the dialog box, as plain text.

Planning
=======

We could imagine implementing this in 2 steps if we think it’s too much for 1 step. Step 1 would mean only supporting macro content in the current doc’s syntax (as in the current proposal prior to this one in this email). Step 2 would mean breaking backward-compatibility (but getType() is @Unstable so we would have over 1 year to do it) and implementing support for all cases.

WDYT?

Thanks
-Vincent

> On 14 Sep 2018, at 16:39, Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just edited the design page of the proposal after the meeting we had yesterday with Vincent, Thomas and Marius: https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/MacroInlineEditingContent/
>
> To quickly sum up the main parts are:
>  - we allow to specify a type in the ContentDescriptor of the macro
>  - we define a new MetaDataBlock for Java macro to specify which part of the content is editable
>  - we document a new attribute for GroupBlock/FormatBlock to specify which part of the content is editable in WikiMacro
>
> Thanks again for your feedbacks!
> Simon
>
> On 9/12/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:56 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/12/18 5:45 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>>> Yeah I know, too many answer mails...
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:28 PM Thomas Mortagne
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as a follow up of this proposal and the discussion we had, I just created
>>>>>>>> the following design proposal:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/MacroInlineEditingContent/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me know what you think about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding the Content Descriptor, which Syntax(es) will activate the inline
>>>>>>> editing of the macro content? I'm asking because the Syntax of the content
>>>>>>> is not the most important part. The most important part for the WYSIWYG
>>>>>>> editor is to know if the macro code outputs the macro content without
>>>>>>> transforming it. Without this it cannot enable inline editing. If the macro
>>>>>>> output is rendered without modifications then the WYSIWYG editor can enable
>>>>>>> inline editing but it needs to know in which Syntax to convert the HTML
>>>>>>> produced while editing inline. So to summarize:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * First the WYSIWYG editor needs to know if the macro content is rendered
>>>>>>> without modifications
>>>>>>> * then the WYSIWYG editor needs to know the target Syntax to which to
>>>>>>> convert the HTML
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The WYSIWYG editor will know if it's editable if it exists a parser and
>>>>>> a renderer for this syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are mixing different things here:
>>>>> * a macro which can be edited with A WYSIWYG for example in the model macro form
>>>>> * a macro content which IS NOT TRANSFORMED BY THE MACRO and so can be
>>>>> edited inline
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> So the target syntax is the given macro syntax.
>>>>
>>>> There is several things I don't like about Syntax:
>>>>
>>>> * You assume that the macro content is a XWiki Rendering content
>>>> (since that's what Syntax is for) with potential parser/renderer but
>>>> that's not the case for many (if not most) macros
>>>
>>> No, the idea is to have something extensible: a macro can add a syntax,
>>> and on the future, specify its own custom code to be used as an editor.
>>> Without specifying any parser/renderer then.
>> The org.xwiki.rendering.syntax.Syntax class "Represents a wiki syntax
>> that the user can use to enter wiki content" according to its
>> definition. If what you want is not related to a content that can be
>> represented as XDOM then you should introduce a new type, it will also
>> avoid conflicting with existing Syntax which may define something very
>> different that what a Macro would like to express.
>>>
>>>> * Type is more consistent with parameters and there is no reason to
>>>> have two systems for the same need: describe what kind of data and
>>>> have a reusable set of displayers for each type of data. Also it's not
>>>> just about macro parameters we use the same system in other places
>>>> (Filter input/output parameters for example).
>>>
>>> Could you elaborate how do you see things with type? Should we create a
>>> different type for each macro content then? And we would have to create
>>> the proper types for plain/html/wiki content?
>> Here are the types you need right now:
>> * plain/undefined content: java.lang.String (the default since that's
>> the current behavior)
>> * wiki content for which the syntax depends on the location of the
>> macro: as I said in a previous mail we have existing types for this
>> already, Block, List<XDOM> or CompositeBlock (possibly XDOM for macros
>> which can only be used in a standalone context if we want to express
>> in the type even if it duplicates Macro#supportsInlineMode()) express
>> it well already. But since we also need "not transformed wiki content"
>> for inline editing in the WYSIWYG we could introduce a new type to
>> express that, something like "FinalCompositeBlock extends
>> CompositeBlock" or some other name (we could arbitrary decide that
>> CompositeBlock means final but I don't think it would be clear enough)
>> Here are a few example for the future:
>> * template (as defined by
>> https://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Template+Module#HContent):
>> org.xwiki.template.TemplateContent
>> * html: I can't think of anything clean enough so probably a new type yes
>> * velocity, groovy, python, etc.: new types but we can still make
>> generic code life a bit easier (at least on Java side) with something
>> like a new "VelocityContent" type annotated with
>> @ScriptContent("velocity") for example
>> * specific wiki content (I don't think we have the use case right now
>> but never knows): same logic as for script contents I guess
>> * <many other types used in the parameters already>
>> All that could be expressed with names instead of Java types but the
>> point of using Types is that:
>> * well that's made to define type of stuff after all :)
>> * more importantly we can use the same system for macro parameters,
>> filter properties and content (and other stuff in the future) to find
>> out a suitable displayer/editor. For example some macro have the need
>> to take wiki content as parameter too.
>>>
>>>> * Even if macro content was only about rendering content syntax is not
>>>> very well suited to differentiate between content transformed by the
>>>> macro (takes wiki content as input data but produce something which
>>>> may have nothing to do with it) and content not transformed by the
>>>> macro (just parse/render the content with stuff around it) since it
>>>> has nothing to do with the actual content syntax.
>>>
>>> As I said, the idea is to allow user to be able to specify their own
>>> editor.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool :) We've been waiting for a long time about this feature! See
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and/or parameters should be edited.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently produces this code:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <div class="title">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <span class="icon info"></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         some title
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Some content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific class around the content to tell the editor it should only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> editing this content, e.g.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <div class="title">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <span class="icon info"></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         some title
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By “users”, I guess you mean macro developers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here yes it's the macro developer. I'll try to be more specific in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I understand you well, you’re not planning to add a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getter/setters to the Macro descriptor, to tell that the macro
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains wiki markup and that it should be editable in the WYSIWYG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> editor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually we're planning to add the getter/setter **and** the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markup for the editor. The getter/setter (which I called the flag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above), is here to specify that the macro will contain inline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editable
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> content in WYSIWYG. The markup will specify *where* exactly is this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content, and what shouldn't be changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About that "flag", you seems to plan a boolean but I feel something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more generic that we want to introduce since a long time would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better: make the content descriptor return a type like parameters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptors do. The kind of inline editing you have in mind right now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would then be associated to the type List<Block> for example (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompositeBlock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or some another type if we want to differentiate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between wiki content modified by the macro and wiki content not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified by the macro
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need this differentiation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure but as I said you can differentiate using types too and we need
>>>>>>>>>>>> content types for other use cases so it's a good occasion. Also when
>>>>>>>>>>>> you use the type you can differentiate between wiki content and HTML
>>>>>>>>>>>> content and support inline editing of HTML macro in the same system
>>>>>>>>>>>> for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not against your proposal. It's a bit more work though, to define
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> types, but I suppose it's worth the effort.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not much more work, just need to define one type for the current
>>>>>>>>> use case ("final" wiki content). Other types can come later when
>>>>>>>>> implementing support for them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So if I follow the idea would be to use this type defined for the
>>>>>>>>>> content descriptor to specify the behaviour of the editor: e.g. if the
>>>>>>>>>> content descriptor is defined as an html content, then the html editor
>>>>>>>>>> would be used, if it's defined as an inline content, then it would be an
>>>>>>>>>> editor with limitation to clean html and line returns, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Still it does not change the need to specify which elements of the
>>>>>>>>>> content are editable, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure but that's the "second step". I only talked about replacing the
>>>>>>>>> flag you defined as the first step by a more generic type :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Moreover I've the feeling that the parameters are already not supporting
>>>>>>>>>> the different types for edition (e.g. a boolean parameter only shows a
>>>>>>>>>> text input). So wouldn't it be a priority before putting a type on the
>>>>>>>>>> content descriptor itself?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The WYSIWYG does miss a lot of displayers and we need work on that for
>>>>>>>>> sure but:
>>>>>>>>> * you get a checkbox for boolean properties so the type is taken into
>>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>>> * having more specific displayers is not a requirement for working on
>>>>>>>>> inline wiki editing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ). The other types would be used in other use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases (syntax coloring for scripts, json editor, etc.). The idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Java type is to be consistent with parameters and reuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the displayers in the macro modal window for example but it can cover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this need too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess that if the flag is set and the markup is not present, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire content is considered as editable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that because you want to be finer-grained and have macro content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can have parts editable with the WYSIWYG while having other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the content not editable (for example)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's exactly why yes. On my example, the macro user won't be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the content of the title.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically Macros don’t generate HTML, only XDOM. So in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it easier for java macro developers, I’d suggest to introduce some new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapping Block to indicate this information. We might need something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar for wiki macros too, to make it more reusable and typed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd need to look more on wrapping block but after a quick overlook
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to make sense indeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a parameter named foo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value</span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s your idea for editing parameters requiring WYSIWYG? How do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> present them in the UI? Do you have any mockup?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any mockup right now. FTM I see it like this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       - when creating the macro, the current text input are improved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the CKEditor for the editable content/parameters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       - when editing the macro, you stay in the main editor UI, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content is now editable instead of opening back the macro UI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter</span></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "editable-content"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Small details, there’s already the “contenteditable” notion that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists (see https://developer.mozilla.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fr/docs/Web/HTML/Attributs_
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universels/contenteditable) so “editable-content” is quite close.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we should have something more xwiki-specific? or more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG-specific?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like “editable-wysiwyg” or “wysiwyg-editable”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm open to suggestion on this one. "wysiwyg-editable" could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My main comment is what I put above: how do we make it easy for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> macro
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers to specify this information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editing of parameters?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before answering that part, I would need to understand what’s the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal in term of UI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the main use case is for content but it’s nice if you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also support parameters. Now, accepting markup in parameters is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a great use case IMO and is usually a design issue so I’m not sure we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should spend that much time in supporting that. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We just discuss about macro parameters with Ludovic and apparently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot support line returns, so we might have to use a custom editor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> those.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only macro parameter I know ATM that supports markup is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “title” param of the {{box}} macro and I think it’s badly designed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you check the recent {{figure}} macro, I implemented this need by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a {{figureCaption}} nested macro.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW this raises a question, will you support WYSIWYG editing of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> macros?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Urli
>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>> [hidden email]
>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> [hidden email]
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:52 AM Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Simon and all,
>
> After thinking about this (and not being to sleep one night for some hours about it ;)), I have the following problems with the proposal so far:
> * It doesn’t address macro content types that are NOT in the current document’s syntax.
> * The API is awkward since the proposal is to return a List<Block> java Type for "macros having content written in the current document’s syntax”, while other macros containing markup would need to invent their own types.
>
> Needs:
> =====
>
> There are 2 use cases for this:
>
> A) Dynamic macro content type.
>
> Just giving 2 existing examples:
>
> Example 1: {{content syntax=“markdown/1.2”}}….{{/content}}
> Example 2: {{jira source=“jql | list”…}}…{{/jira}}
>
> The content types depends on some macro parameter values in each case.
>
> B) Fixed content type
>
> Example: Someone contributes a new macro in xwiki-contrib named {{markdown}} and that contains a fixed markup content in syntax “markdown/1.2”.
>
> Issues
> =====
>
> The current proposal says that macro not having content written in the current document’s syntax should implement their own content Type.
>
> However there are several problems with that:
> * It gives an uneven API: it’s not normal to not return List<Block> type for any macro having markup that can be parsed into a List<Block>.
> * It means the WYSIWYG editor won’t be able to support the {{content}} or {{markdown}} macros I mentioned above which is a pity since technically it can support them when there are parsers/renderers for the syntax. Thomas mentioned (during a conf call) that we could simply add support for those special types in the WYSIWYG by hardcoding them. However that won’t work since my example with the {{markdown}} macros is about a contrib macro that doesn’t exist ATM so we cannot hardcode its support in the WYSIWYG.

No this is not what I said. I said that the WYSIWYG can support
several types and I gave an example of Type which would cover the
content macro use case: a type which extends Block or List<Block> and
for which the WYSIWYG knows the syntax come from a parameter named
"syntax". Many unknown macros can use the same type, nothing do with
the macro with id "content". An idea I did not mentioned during the
meeting is that we could even decide the parameter "syntax" with type
"Syntax" is a standard way to overwrite current syntax for any macro
which expose it in which case this behavior would simply be associated
to List<Block> Type (and taken into account in MacroContentParser).

As for jira macro I did not really mentioned it since it was not
really a priority for the first version which is targeting more macros
containing wiki content we can edit directly in the WYSIWYG but for me
it would be a dedicated type and associated editor.

>
> Proposal
> =======
>
> Thus I really believe that we need to do 2 things:
> 1) Have the macro content’s getType() return the java type that can represent the content, i.e. List<Block> whenever the content contains markup that can be parsed into a List<Block> by one syntax parser. And have List<Block> simply means markup content.
> 2) Have the WYSIWYG be able to edit inline macros having markup content, i.e. that returns a List<Block> type, when they are written in a supported syntax (a supported syntax is simply a syntax for which there’s a parser and a renderer). Thus we need to have Macros be able to provide the Syntax to the WYSIWYG.
>
> There are several ways to implement 2), one simple way is to introduce a SyntaxDescriptor component role:
>
> @Role
> public interface SyntaxDescriptor
> {
>     Syntax getSyntax(Map<String, Object> macroParameters);
> }
>
> And then have the WYSIWYG get a component instance of an implementation of SyntaxDescriptor with a hint being the macro id for example. And if none is found, default to a CurrentDocumentSyntaxDescriptor() that would return the current document’s syntax. Or something like this.
>
> This also means that in the WYSIWYG macro dialog box, when a parameter is modified, it would call SyntaxDescriptor#getSyntax() to get the Syntax and if that syntax doesn’t have a parser/renderer, it would display the content in the dialog box, as plain text.
>
> Planning
> =======
>
> We could imagine implementing this in 2 steps if we think it’s too much for 1 step. Step 1 would mean only supporting macro content in the current doc’s syntax (as in the current proposal prior to this one in this email). Step 2 would mean breaking backward-compatibility (but getType() is @Unstable so we would have over 1 year to do it) and implementing support for all cases.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> > On 14 Sep 2018, at 16:39, Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I just edited the design page of the proposal after the meeting we had yesterday with Vincent, Thomas and Marius: https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/MacroInlineEditingContent/
> >
> > To quickly sum up the main parts are:
> >  - we allow to specify a type in the ContentDescriptor of the macro
> >  - we define a new MetaDataBlock for Java macro to specify which part of the content is editable
> >  - we document a new attribute for GroupBlock/FormatBlock to specify which part of the content is editable in WikiMacro
> >
> > Thanks again for your feedbacks!
> > Simon
> >
> > On 9/12/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:56 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/12/18 5:45 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> >>>> Yeah I know, too many answer mails...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:28 PM Thomas Mortagne
> >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> as a follow up of this proposal and the discussion we had, I just created
> >>>>>>>> the following design proposal:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/MacroInlineEditingContent/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Let me know what you think about it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regarding the Content Descriptor, which Syntax(es) will activate the inline
> >>>>>>> editing of the macro content? I'm asking because the Syntax of the content
> >>>>>>> is not the most important part. The most important part for the WYSIWYG
> >>>>>>> editor is to know if the macro code outputs the macro content without
> >>>>>>> transforming it. Without this it cannot enable inline editing. If the macro
> >>>>>>> output is rendered without modifications then the WYSIWYG editor can enable
> >>>>>>> inline editing but it needs to know in which Syntax to convert the HTML
> >>>>>>> produced while editing inline. So to summarize:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> * First the WYSIWYG editor needs to know if the macro content is rendered
> >>>>>>> without modifications
> >>>>>>> * then the WYSIWYG editor needs to know the target Syntax to which to
> >>>>>>> convert the HTML
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The WYSIWYG editor will know if it's editable if it exists a parser and
> >>>>>> a renderer for this syntax.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are mixing different things here:
> >>>>> * a macro which can be edited with A WYSIWYG for example in the model macro form
> >>>>> * a macro content which IS NOT TRANSFORMED BY THE MACRO and so can be
> >>>>> edited inline
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> So the target syntax is the given macro syntax.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is several things I don't like about Syntax:
> >>>>
> >>>> * You assume that the macro content is a XWiki Rendering content
> >>>> (since that's what Syntax is for) with potential parser/renderer but
> >>>> that's not the case for many (if not most) macros
> >>>
> >>> No, the idea is to have something extensible: a macro can add a syntax,
> >>> and on the future, specify its own custom code to be used as an editor.
> >>> Without specifying any parser/renderer then.
> >> The org.xwiki.rendering.syntax.Syntax class "Represents a wiki syntax
> >> that the user can use to enter wiki content" according to its
> >> definition. If what you want is not related to a content that can be
> >> represented as XDOM then you should introduce a new type, it will also
> >> avoid conflicting with existing Syntax which may define something very
> >> different that what a Macro would like to express.
> >>>
> >>>> * Type is more consistent with parameters and there is no reason to
> >>>> have two systems for the same need: describe what kind of data and
> >>>> have a reusable set of displayers for each type of data. Also it's not
> >>>> just about macro parameters we use the same system in other places
> >>>> (Filter input/output parameters for example).
> >>>
> >>> Could you elaborate how do you see things with type? Should we create a
> >>> different type for each macro content then? And we would have to create
> >>> the proper types for plain/html/wiki content?
> >> Here are the types you need right now:
> >> * plain/undefined content: java.lang.String (the default since that's
> >> the current behavior)
> >> * wiki content for which the syntax depends on the location of the
> >> macro: as I said in a previous mail we have existing types for this
> >> already, Block, List<XDOM> or CompositeBlock (possibly XDOM for macros
> >> which can only be used in a standalone context if we want to express
> >> in the type even if it duplicates Macro#supportsInlineMode()) express
> >> it well already. But since we also need "not transformed wiki content"
> >> for inline editing in the WYSIWYG we could introduce a new type to
> >> express that, something like "FinalCompositeBlock extends
> >> CompositeBlock" or some other name (we could arbitrary decide that
> >> CompositeBlock means final but I don't think it would be clear enough)
> >> Here are a few example for the future:
> >> * template (as defined by
> >> https://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Template+Module#HContent):
> >> org.xwiki.template.TemplateContent
> >> * html: I can't think of anything clean enough so probably a new type yes
> >> * velocity, groovy, python, etc.: new types but we can still make
> >> generic code life a bit easier (at least on Java side) with something
> >> like a new "VelocityContent" type annotated with
> >> @ScriptContent("velocity") for example
> >> * specific wiki content (I don't think we have the use case right now
> >> but never knows): same logic as for script contents I guess
> >> * <many other types used in the parameters already>
> >> All that could be expressed with names instead of Java types but the
> >> point of using Types is that:
> >> * well that's made to define type of stuff after all :)
> >> * more importantly we can use the same system for macro parameters,
> >> filter properties and content (and other stuff in the future) to find
> >> out a suitable displayer/editor. For example some macro have the need
> >> to take wiki content as parameter too.
> >>>
> >>>> * Even if macro content was only about rendering content syntax is not
> >>>> very well suited to differentiate between content transformed by the
> >>>> macro (takes wiki content as input data but produce something which
> >>>> may have nothing to do with it) and content not transformed by the
> >>>> macro (just parse/render the content with stuff around it) since it
> >>>> has nothing to do with the actual content syntax.
> >>>
> >>> As I said, the idea is to allow user to be able to specify their own
> >>> editor.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Simon
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool :) We've been waiting for a long time about this feature! See
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> or a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and/or parameters should be edited.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> currently produces this code:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <div class="title">
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <span class="icon info"></span>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         some title
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       </div>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Some content
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific class around the content to tell the editor it should only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> editing this content, e.g.:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <div class="title">
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         <span class="icon info"></span>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         some title
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       </div>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By “users”, I guess you mean macro developers?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here yes it's the macro developer. I'll try to be more specific in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I understand you well, you’re not planning to add a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getter/setters to the Macro descriptor, to tell that the macro
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains wiki markup and that it should be editable in the WYSIWYG
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> editor?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually we're planning to add the getter/setter **and** the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markup for the editor. The getter/setter (which I called the flag
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above), is here to specify that the macro will contain inline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> editable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> content in WYSIWYG. The markup will specify *where* exactly is this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content, and what shouldn't be changed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> About that "flag", you seems to plan a boolean but I feel something
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more generic that we want to introduce since a long time would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better: make the content descriptor return a type like parameters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptors do. The kind of inline editing you have in mind right now
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would then be associated to the type List<Block> for example (or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompositeBlock
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> or some another type if we want to differentiate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> between wiki content modified by the macro and wiki content not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified by the macro
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We need this differentiation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure but as I said you can differentiate using types too and we need
> >>>>>>>>>>>> content types for other use cases so it's a good occasion. Also when
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you use the type you can differentiate between wiki content and HTML
> >>>>>>>>>>>> content and support inline editing of HTML macro in the same system
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for example.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not against your proposal. It's a bit more work though, to define
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> types, but I suppose it's worth the effort.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It's not much more work, just need to define one type for the current
> >>>>>>>>> use case ("final" wiki content). Other types can come later when
> >>>>>>>>> implementing support for them.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So if I follow the idea would be to use this type defined for the
> >>>>>>>>>> content descriptor to specify the behaviour of the editor: e.g. if the
> >>>>>>>>>> content descriptor is defined as an html content, then the html editor
> >>>>>>>>>> would be used, if it's defined as an inline content, then it would be an
> >>>>>>>>>> editor with limitation to clean html and line returns, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Still it does not change the need to specify which elements of the
> >>>>>>>>>> content are editable, right?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sure but that's the "second step". I only talked about replacing the
> >>>>>>>>> flag you defined as the first step by a more generic type :)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Moreover I've the feeling that the parameters are already not supporting
> >>>>>>>>>> the different types for edition (e.g. a boolean parameter only shows a
> >>>>>>>>>> text input). So wouldn't it be a priority before putting a type on the
> >>>>>>>>>> content descriptor itself?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The WYSIWYG does miss a lot of displayers and we need work on that for
> >>>>>>>>> sure but:
> >>>>>>>>> * you get a checkbox for boolean properties so the type is taken into
> >>>>>>>>> account
> >>>>>>>>> * having more specific displayers is not a requirement for working on
> >>>>>>>>> inline wiki editing
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ). The other types would be used in other use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases (syntax coloring for scripts, json editor, etc.). The idea of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Java type is to be consistent with parameters and reuse
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the displayers in the macro modal window for example but it can cover
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this need too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess that if the flag is set and the markup is not present, then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> entire content is considered as editable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that because you want to be finer-grained and have macro content
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can have parts editable with the WYSIWYG while having other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the content not editable (for example)?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's exactly why yes. On my example, the macro user won't be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the content of the title.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically Macros don’t generate HTML, only XDOM. So in order to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it easier for java macro developers, I’d suggest to introduce some new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapping Block to indicate this information. We might need something
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar for wiki macros too, to make it more reusable and typed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd need to look more on wrapping block but after a quick overlook
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to make sense indeed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a parameter named foo:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> value</span>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s your idea for editing parameters requiring WYSIWYG? How do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> present them in the UI? Do you have any mockup?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any mockup right now. FTM I see it like this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       - when creating the macro, the current text input are improved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the CKEditor for the editable content/parameters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       - when editing the macro, you stay in the main editor UI, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content is now editable instead of opening back the macro UI
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter</span></span>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "editable-content"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Small details, there’s already the “contenteditable” notion that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists (see https://developer.mozilla.org/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fr/docs/Web/HTML/Attributs_
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> universels/contenteditable) so “editable-content” is quite close.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we should have something more xwiki-specific? or more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG-specific?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like “editable-wysiwyg” or “wysiwyg-editable”.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm open to suggestion on this one. "wysiwyg-editable" could be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My main comment is what I put above: how do we make it easy for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> macro
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> developers to specify this information.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editing of parameters?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before answering that part, I would need to understand what’s the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal in term of UI.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the main use case is for content but it’s nice if you can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also support parameters. Now, accepting markup in parameters is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a great use case IMO and is usually a design issue so I’m not sure we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should spend that much time in supporting that. WDYT?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We just discuss about macro parameters with Ludovic and apparently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot support line returns, so we might have to use a custom editor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> those.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only macro parameter I know ATM that supports markup is the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “title” param of the {{box}} macro and I think it’s badly designed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if you check the recent {{figure}} macro, I implemented this need by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> having
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a {{figureCaption}} nested macro.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW this raises a question, will you support WYSIWYG editing of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> macros?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vincent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
> >>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Simon Urli
> >>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Simon Urli
> >>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Thomas Mortagne
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Simon Urli
> >>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >
> > --
> > Simon Urli
> > Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> > [hidden email]
> > More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>


--
Thomas Mortagne
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

vmassol
Administrator
Hi Thomas and all,

> On 17 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:52 AM Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Simon and all,
>>
>> After thinking about this (and not being to sleep one night for some hours about it ;)), I have the following problems with the proposal so far:
>> * It doesn’t address macro content types that are NOT in the current document’s syntax.
>> * The API is awkward since the proposal is to return a List<Block> java Type for "macros having content written in the current document’s syntax”, while other macros containing markup would need to invent their own types.
>>
>> Needs:
>> =====
>>
>> There are 2 use cases for this:
>>
>> A) Dynamic macro content type.
>>
>> Just giving 2 existing examples:
>>
>> Example 1: {{content syntax=“markdown/1.2”}}….{{/content}}
>> Example 2: {{jira source=“jql | list”…}}…{{/jira}}
>>
>> The content types depends on some macro parameter values in each case.
>>
>> B) Fixed content type
>>
>> Example: Someone contributes a new macro in xwiki-contrib named {{markdown}} and that contains a fixed markup content in syntax “markdown/1.2”.
>>
>> Issues
>> =====
>>
>> The current proposal says that macro not having content written in the current document’s syntax should implement their own content Type.
>>
>> However there are several problems with that:
>> * It gives an uneven API: it’s not normal to not return List<Block> type for any macro having markup that can be parsed into a List<Block>.
>> * It means the WYSIWYG editor won’t be able to support the {{content}} or {{markdown}} macros I mentioned above which is a pity since technically it can support them when there are parsers/renderers for the syntax. Thomas mentioned (during a conf call) that we could simply add support for those special types in the WYSIWYG by hardcoding them. However that won’t work since my example with the {{markdown}} macros is about a contrib macro that doesn’t exist ATM so we cannot hardcode its support in the WYSIWYG.
>
> No this is not what I said. I said that the WYSIWYG can support
> several types and I gave an example of Type which would cover the
> content macro use case: a type which extends Block or List<Block> and
> for which the WYSIWYG knows the syntax come from a parameter named
> "syntax". Many unknown macros can use the same type, nothing do with
> the macro with id "content”.

So you’re actually confirming that what I had understood you said was correct :)

With your design, the WYSIWYG cannot support the use case of a contrib extension being added and specifying the syntax through some parameter (you cannot guess the parameter name obviously and the contrib developer is free to use whatever name makes sense to him) or some other conditions.

Constraining the WYSIWYG to only support macros have a parameter named “syntax” is bad ofc.

It also wouldn’t support the other use case I gave, which is a macro that has a fixed content type (that doesn’t come from a “syntax” parameter) such as a {{markdown}} macro that I mentioned.

So with your design the WYSIWYG cannot support all cases that it could support, which is the case in the design that I proposed.

> An idea I did not mentioned during the
> meeting is that we could even decide the parameter "syntax" with type
> "Syntax" is a standard way to overwrite current syntax for any macro
> which expose it in which case this behavior would simply be associated
> to List<Block> Type (and taken into account in MacroContentParser).

What would this mean for a user contributing a {{markdown}} macro? That he’d have to define a optional parameter named “syntax”, and that this parameter would need to have some @Hidden annotation to be hidden from the WYSIWYG editor?

Seems this would mix semantics. Unless I’ve misunderstood it, I prefer the solution I’ve proposed so far.

> As for jira macro I did not really mentioned it since it was not
> really a priority for the first version which is targeting more macros
> containing wiki content we can edit directly in the WYSIWYG

It’s not about implementing anything now but to have a design that supports it.

> but for me
> it would be a dedicated type and associated editor.

How would the custom editor now which format it’s written in (JQL or List of JIRA IDs)? You have exactly the same type of issue than for the WYSIWYG where the Type is not enough and you need additional information (the Syntax for the WYSIWYG).

Thanks
-Vincent

>
>>
>> Proposal
>> =======
>>
>> Thus I really believe that we need to do 2 things:
>> 1) Have the macro content’s getType() return the java type that can represent the content, i.e. List<Block> whenever the content contains markup that can be parsed into a List<Block> by one syntax parser. And have List<Block> simply means markup content.
>> 2) Have the WYSIWYG be able to edit inline macros having markup content, i.e. that returns a List<Block> type, when they are written in a supported syntax (a supported syntax is simply a syntax for which there’s a parser and a renderer). Thus we need to have Macros be able to provide the Syntax to the WYSIWYG.
>>
>> There are several ways to implement 2), one simple way is to introduce a SyntaxDescriptor component role:
>>
>> @Role
>> public interface SyntaxDescriptor
>> {
>>    Syntax getSyntax(Map<String, Object> macroParameters);
>> }
>>
>> And then have the WYSIWYG get a component instance of an implementation of SyntaxDescriptor with a hint being the macro id for example. And if none is found, default to a CurrentDocumentSyntaxDescriptor() that would return the current document’s syntax. Or something like this.
>>
>> This also means that in the WYSIWYG macro dialog box, when a parameter is modified, it would call SyntaxDescriptor#getSyntax() to get the Syntax and if that syntax doesn’t have a parser/renderer, it would display the content in the dialog box, as plain text.
>>
>> Planning
>> =======
>>
>> We could imagine implementing this in 2 steps if we think it’s too much for 1 step. Step 1 would mean only supporting macro content in the current doc’s syntax (as in the current proposal prior to this one in this email). Step 2 would mean breaking backward-compatibility (but getType() is @Unstable so we would have over 1 year to do it) and implementing support for all cases.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>> On 14 Sep 2018, at 16:39, Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I just edited the design page of the proposal after the meeting we had yesterday with Vincent, Thomas and Marius: https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/MacroInlineEditingContent/
>>>
>>> To quickly sum up the main parts are:
>>> - we allow to specify a type in the ContentDescriptor of the macro
>>> - we define a new MetaDataBlock for Java macro to specify which part of the content is editable
>>> - we document a new attribute for GroupBlock/FormatBlock to specify which part of the content is editable in WikiMacro
>>>
>>> Thanks again for your feedbacks!
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> On 9/12/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:56 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/18 5:45 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>>>>> Yeah I know, too many answer mails...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:28 PM Thomas Mortagne
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as a follow up of this proposal and the discussion we had, I just created
>>>>>>>>>> the following design proposal:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/MacroInlineEditingContent/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let me know what you think about it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regarding the Content Descriptor, which Syntax(es) will activate the inline
>>>>>>>>> editing of the macro content? I'm asking because the Syntax of the content
>>>>>>>>> is not the most important part. The most important part for the WYSIWYG
>>>>>>>>> editor is to know if the macro code outputs the macro content without
>>>>>>>>> transforming it. Without this it cannot enable inline editing. If the macro
>>>>>>>>> output is rendered without modifications then the WYSIWYG editor can enable
>>>>>>>>> inline editing but it needs to know in which Syntax to convert the HTML
>>>>>>>>> produced while editing inline. So to summarize:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * First the WYSIWYG editor needs to know if the macro content is rendered
>>>>>>>>> without modifications
>>>>>>>>> * then the WYSIWYG editor needs to know the target Syntax to which to
>>>>>>>>> convert the HTML
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The WYSIWYG editor will know if it's editable if it exists a parser and
>>>>>>>> a renderer for this syntax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are mixing different things here:
>>>>>>> * a macro which can be edited with A WYSIWYG for example in the model macro form
>>>>>>> * a macro content which IS NOT TRANSFORMED BY THE MACRO and so can be
>>>>>>> edited inline
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the target syntax is the given macro syntax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is several things I don't like about Syntax:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * You assume that the macro content is a XWiki Rendering content
>>>>>> (since that's what Syntax is for) with potential parser/renderer but
>>>>>> that's not the case for many (if not most) macros
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the idea is to have something extensible: a macro can add a syntax,
>>>>> and on the future, specify its own custom code to be used as an editor.
>>>>> Without specifying any parser/renderer then.
>>>> The org.xwiki.rendering.syntax.Syntax class "Represents a wiki syntax
>>>> that the user can use to enter wiki content" according to its
>>>> definition. If what you want is not related to a content that can be
>>>> represented as XDOM then you should introduce a new type, it will also
>>>> avoid conflicting with existing Syntax which may define something very
>>>> different that what a Macro would like to express.
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Type is more consistent with parameters and there is no reason to
>>>>>> have two systems for the same need: describe what kind of data and
>>>>>> have a reusable set of displayers for each type of data. Also it's not
>>>>>> just about macro parameters we use the same system in other places
>>>>>> (Filter input/output parameters for example).
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you elaborate how do you see things with type? Should we create a
>>>>> different type for each macro content then? And we would have to create
>>>>> the proper types for plain/html/wiki content?
>>>> Here are the types you need right now:
>>>> * plain/undefined content: java.lang.String (the default since that's
>>>> the current behavior)
>>>> * wiki content for which the syntax depends on the location of the
>>>> macro: as I said in a previous mail we have existing types for this
>>>> already, Block, List<XDOM> or CompositeBlock (possibly XDOM for macros
>>>> which can only be used in a standalone context if we want to express
>>>> in the type even if it duplicates Macro#supportsInlineMode()) express
>>>> it well already. But since we also need "not transformed wiki content"
>>>> for inline editing in the WYSIWYG we could introduce a new type to
>>>> express that, something like "FinalCompositeBlock extends
>>>> CompositeBlock" or some other name (we could arbitrary decide that
>>>> CompositeBlock means final but I don't think it would be clear enough)
>>>> Here are a few example for the future:
>>>> * template (as defined by
>>>> https://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Template+Module#HContent):
>>>> org.xwiki.template.TemplateContent
>>>> * html: I can't think of anything clean enough so probably a new type yes
>>>> * velocity, groovy, python, etc.: new types but we can still make
>>>> generic code life a bit easier (at least on Java side) with something
>>>> like a new "VelocityContent" type annotated with
>>>> @ScriptContent("velocity") for example
>>>> * specific wiki content (I don't think we have the use case right now
>>>> but never knows): same logic as for script contents I guess
>>>> * <many other types used in the parameters already>
>>>> All that could be expressed with names instead of Java types but the
>>>> point of using Types is that:
>>>> * well that's made to define type of stuff after all :)
>>>> * more importantly we can use the same system for macro parameters,
>>>> filter properties and content (and other stuff in the future) to find
>>>> out a suitable displayer/editor. For example some macro have the need
>>>> to take wiki content as parameter too.
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Even if macro content was only about rendering content syntax is not
>>>>>> very well suited to differentiate between content transformed by the
>>>>>> macro (takes wiki content as input data but produce something which
>>>>>> may have nothing to do with it) and content not transformed by the
>>>>>> macro (just parse/render the content with stuff around it) since it
>>>>>> has nothing to do with the actual content syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, the idea is to allow user to be able to specify their own
>>>>> editor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool :) We've been waiting for a long time about this feature! See
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and/or parameters should be edited.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently produces this code:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      <div class="title">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        <span class="icon info"></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        some title
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Some content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific class around the content to tell the editor it should only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editing this content, e.g.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      <div class="title">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        <span class="icon info"></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        some title
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By “users”, I guess you mean macro developers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here yes it's the macro developer. I'll try to be more specific in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I understand you well, you’re not planning to add a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getter/setters to the Macro descriptor, to tell that the macro
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains wiki markup and that it should be editable in the WYSIWYG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually we're planning to add the getter/setter **and** the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> markup for the editor. The getter/setter (which I called the flag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above), is here to specify that the macro will contain inline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content in WYSIWYG. The markup will specify *where* exactly is this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content, and what shouldn't be changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About that "flag", you seems to plan a boolean but I feel something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more generic that we want to introduce since a long time would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better: make the content descriptor return a type like parameters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptors do. The kind of inline editing you have in mind right now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would then be associated to the type List<Block> for example (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CompositeBlock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or some another type if we want to differentiate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between wiki content modified by the macro and wiki content not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified by the macro
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need this differentiation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure but as I said you can differentiate using types too and we need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content types for other use cases so it's a good occasion. Also when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you use the type you can differentiate between wiki content and HTML
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content and support inline editing of HTML macro in the same system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not against your proposal. It's a bit more work though, to define
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> types, but I suppose it's worth the effort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not much more work, just need to define one type for the current
>>>>>>>>>>> use case ("final" wiki content). Other types can come later when
>>>>>>>>>>> implementing support for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I follow the idea would be to use this type defined for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> content descriptor to specify the behaviour of the editor: e.g. if the
>>>>>>>>>>>> content descriptor is defined as an html content, then the html editor
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be used, if it's defined as an inline content, then it would be an
>>>>>>>>>>>> editor with limitation to clean html and line returns, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Still it does not change the need to specify which elements of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> content are editable, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure but that's the "second step". I only talked about replacing the
>>>>>>>>>>> flag you defined as the first step by a more generic type :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover I've the feeling that the parameters are already not supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>> the different types for edition (e.g. a boolean parameter only shows a
>>>>>>>>>>>> text input). So wouldn't it be a priority before putting a type on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> content descriptor itself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The WYSIWYG does miss a lot of displayers and we need work on that for
>>>>>>>>>>> sure but:
>>>>>>>>>>> * you get a checkbox for boolean properties so the type is taken into
>>>>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>>>>> * having more specific displayers is not a requirement for working on
>>>>>>>>>>> inline wiki editing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ). The other types would be used in other use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases (syntax coloring for scripts, json editor, etc.). The idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using Java type is to be consistent with parameters and reuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the displayers in the macro modal window for example but it can cover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this need too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess that if the flag is set and the markup is not present, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire content is considered as editable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that because you want to be finer-grained and have macro content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can have parts editable with the WYSIWYG while having other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the content not editable (for example)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's exactly why yes. On my example, the macro user won't be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the content of the title.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically Macros don’t generate HTML, only XDOM. So in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it easier for java macro developers, I’d suggest to introduce some new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapping Block to indicate this information. We might need something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar for wiki macros too, to make it more reusable and typed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd need to look more on wrapping block but after a quick overlook
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to make sense indeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a parameter named foo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value</span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s your idea for editing parameters requiring WYSIWYG? How do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present them in the UI? Do you have any mockup?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any mockup right now. FTM I see it like this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - when creating the macro, the current text input are improved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the CKEditor for the editable content/parameters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - when editing the macro, you stay in the main editor UI, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content is now editable instead of opening back the macro UI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter</span></span>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "editable-content"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Small details, there’s already the “contenteditable” notion that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists (see https://developer.mozilla.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fr/docs/Web/HTML/Attributs_
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universels/contenteditable) so “editable-content” is quite close.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we should have something more xwiki-specific? or more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WYSIWYG-specific?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like “editable-wysiwyg” or “wysiwyg-editable”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm open to suggestion on this one. "wysiwyg-editable" could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My main comment is what I put above: how do we make it easy for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> macro
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers to specify this information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editing of parameters?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before answering that part, I would need to understand what’s the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal in term of UI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the main use case is for content but it’s nice if you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also support parameters. Now, accepting markup in parameters is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a great use case IMO and is usually a design issue so I’m not sure we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should spend that much time in supporting that. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We just discuss about macro parameters with Ludovic and apparently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot support line returns, so we might have to use a custom editor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only macro parameter I know ATM that supports markup is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “title” param of the {{box}} macro and I think it’s badly designed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you check the recent {{figure}} macro, I implemented this need by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a {{figureCaption}} nested macro.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW this raises a question, will you support WYSIWYG editing of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> macros?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Urli
>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>> [hidden email]
>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Marius Dumitru Florea
In reply to this post by Simon Urli
Hi everyone,

I've started implementing this on the WYSIWYG editor side and there are two
constraints that we need to be aware:


(1) Macro#supportsInlineMode() must be false

The CKEditor handles macros as widgets
<https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/guide/widget_sdk_intro.html>
and widgets can have nested editable parts, which is great, BUT these
nested editable parts must have a block-level element as parent. The list
of elements that are accepted as in place editing hosts can be found here
https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/api/CKEDITOR_dtd.html#property-S-editable
. This means that only block-level widgets can be edited in place. As a
consequence, only block-level macros can be edited in place. There's an
open issue about this https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
but I can't tell if it's going to be fixed soon or not.

What options do we have?

(a) enable in place editing only for macros that have supportsInlineMode
false; that's the easiest but it excludes from the start macros such as
info, error, warning, which is a pity.
(b) activate in place editing only when the macro generates block level
content; this means that the users will be able to edit in place a warning
macro that is standalone, such as:

-----8<-----
before

{{warning}}message{{/warning}}

after
----->8-----

but not a warning macro that is inside some paragraph text, such as:

-----8<-----
before {{warning}}message{{/warning}} after
----->8-----

The issue is that we don't always know if the macro output is block-level
until we render the macro so hiding the macro content text area when
inserting a macro is not easy.

(c) Try to implement https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
ourselves, but I don't think it's easy
(d) Don't use widgets to support macros and implement something custom. I
think this is crazy.


(2) The second constraint is that the macro content must not be mandatory.

ATM both {{info/}} and {{info}}{{/info}} generate "The required content is
missing." and so do the other macros I've tested. So it seems there's no
distinction between empty content and no content at the implementation
level. Thus, if we want to hide the macro content text area when inserting
a macro such as {{info}} then we need to make the macro content optional.
Either by changing the macro descriptor or by changing the implementation
to differentiate the empty content from no content specified.

Thanks,
Marius


On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:05 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition with
> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
>
> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a content or
> a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
>
> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the content
> and/or parameters should be edited.
> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter, which
> currently produces this code:
>
> <div class="box infomessage">
>    <div class="title">
>      <span class="icon info"></span>
>      some title
>    </div>
>    Some content
> </div>
>
> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a specific
> class around the content to tell the editor it should only allow editing
> this content, e.g.:
>
> <div class="box infomessage">
>    <div class="title">
>      <span class="icon info"></span>
>      some title
>    </div>
>    <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
> </div>
>
> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute and to
> ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as for
> a parameter named foo:
>
> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo parameter
> value</span>
>
> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases such as:
> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
> parameter</span></span>
>
> So:
>    1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named "editable-content"
> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
>    2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
> editing of parameters?
>
> Thanks,
> Simon
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> [hidden email]
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Simon Urli
Hi everyone,

On 10/3/18 5:42 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I've started implementing this on the WYSIWYG editor side and there are two
> constraints that we need to be aware:
>
>
> (1) Macro#supportsInlineMode() must be false
>
> The CKEditor handles macros as widgets
> <https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/guide/widget_sdk_intro.html>
> and widgets can have nested editable parts, which is great, BUT these
> nested editable parts must have a block-level element as parent. The list
> of elements that are accepted as in place editing hosts can be found here
> https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/api/CKEDITOR_dtd.html#property-S-editable
> . This means that only block-level widgets can be edited in place. As a
> consequence, only block-level macros can be edited in place. There's an
> open issue about this https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> but I can't tell if it's going to be fixed soon or not.
>
> What options do we have?
>
> (a) enable in place editing only for macros that have supportsInlineMode
> false; that's the easiest but it excludes from the start macros such as
> info, error, warning, which is a pity.
> (b) activate in place editing only when the macro generates block level
> content; this means that the users will be able to edit in place a warning
> macro that is standalone, such as:
>
> -----8<-----
> before
>
> {{warning}}message{{/warning}}
>
> after
> ----->8-----
>
> but not a warning macro that is inside some paragraph text, such as:
>
> -----8<-----
> before {{warning}}message{{/warning}} after
> ----->8-----
>
> The issue is that we don't always know if the macro output is block-level
> until we render the macro so hiding the macro content text area when
> inserting a macro is not easy.

This option seems less limitating and more easy to achieve isn't it?
And it seems to me that the limitation you mention, can be mitigated if
the content is optional: as you specify below even without a content,
the macro message is able to produce an XDOM output that you could use
to know if the top level is a block or not.

>
> (c) Try to implement https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> ourselves, but I don't think it's easy
> (d) Don't use widgets to support macros and implement something custom. I
> think this is crazy.
>
>
> (2) The second constraint is that the macro content must not be mandatory.
>
> ATM both {{info/}} and {{info}}{{/info}} generate "The required content is
> missing." and so do the other macros I've tested. So it seems there's no
> distinction between empty content and no content at the implementation
> level. Thus, if we want to hide the macro content text area when inserting
> a macro such as {{info}} then we need to make the macro content optional.
> Either by changing the macro descriptor or by changing the implementation
> to differentiate the empty content from no content specified.

Making the macro content means in fact that there is a default content.
So if we make the content optional for the message macro, do you propose
that we put an empty default content?

Simon

>
> Thanks,
> Marius
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:05 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition with
>> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
>>
>> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a content or
>> a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
>>
>> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the content
>> and/or parameters should be edited.
>> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter, which
>> currently produces this code:
>>
>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>     <div class="title">
>>       <span class="icon info"></span>
>>       some title
>>     </div>
>>     Some content
>> </div>
>>
>> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a specific
>> class around the content to tell the editor it should only allow editing
>> this content, e.g.:
>>
>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>     <div class="title">
>>       <span class="icon info"></span>
>>       some title
>>     </div>
>>     <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
>> </div>
>>
>> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute and to
>> ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as for
>> a parameter named foo:
>>
>> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo parameter
>> value</span>
>>
>> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases such as:
>> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
>> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
>> parameter</span></span>
>>
>> So:
>>     1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named "editable-content"
>> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
>>     2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
>> editing of parameters?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>> --
>> Simon Urli
>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>> [hidden email]
>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>

--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
[hidden email]
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Marius Dumitru Florea
In reply to this post by Marius Dumitru Florea
Thomas, I'm looking at how the editor can save the macro content edited
in-line and there are two options I think:

(1) The editor does a separate request to a dedicated service to convert
the macro content from HTML, before the entire page content is saved
(2) The editor marks the macro calls that need to be converted and the
conversion is done when the entire page content is converted

I think the second option makes more sense. We already convert the page
content from HTML to wiki syntax. We could also convert the macro content
in the same flow, if needed.

Note that we can't do the conversion of the macro content every time the
page content is converted. We need to convert the macro content from HTML
only if the editor says that is has been edited in-line. There are at least
2 cases when the conversion is not needed:

* when your insert a gadget in the dashboard (it uses the same Macro Insert
wizard from CKEditor)
* when the macro outputs in-line content, since the CKEditor doesn't
properly support editing in-line widgets in-place (see my other mail)

So we need away to mark the macro calls that need conversion. The macro
marker supports only macro name, parameters and content. One idea is to use
some "reserved" parameter, such as "__requiresHTMLConversion".

WDYT?

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:42 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I've started implementing this on the WYSIWYG editor side and there are
> two constraints that we need to be aware:
>
>
> (1) Macro#supportsInlineMode() must be false
>
> The CKEditor handles macros as widgets
> <https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/guide/widget_sdk_intro.html>
> and widgets can have nested editable parts, which is great, BUT these
> nested editable parts must have a block-level element as parent. The list
> of elements that are accepted as in place editing hosts can be found here
> https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/api/CKEDITOR_dtd.html#property-S-editable
> . This means that only block-level widgets can be edited in place. As a
> consequence, only block-level macros can be edited in place. There's an
> open issue about this https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> but I can't tell if it's going to be fixed soon or not.
>
> What options do we have?
>
> (a) enable in place editing only for macros that have supportsInlineMode
> false; that's the easiest but it excludes from the start macros such as
> info, error, warning, which is a pity.
> (b) activate in place editing only when the macro generates block level
> content; this means that the users will be able to edit in place a warning
> macro that is standalone, such as:
>
> -----8<-----
> before
>
> {{warning}}message{{/warning}}
>
> after
> ----->8-----
>
> but not a warning macro that is inside some paragraph text, such as:
>
> -----8<-----
> before {{warning}}message{{/warning}} after
> ----->8-----
>
> The issue is that we don't always know if the macro output is block-level
> until we render the macro so hiding the macro content text area when
> inserting a macro is not easy.
>
> (c) Try to implement https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> ourselves, but I don't think it's easy
> (d) Don't use widgets to support macros and implement something custom. I
> think this is crazy.
>
>
> (2) The second constraint is that the macro content must not be mandatory.
>
> ATM both {{info/}} and {{info}}{{/info}} generate "The required content is
> missing." and so do the other macros I've tested. So it seems there's no
> distinction between empty content and no content at the implementation
> level. Thus, if we want to hide the macro content text area when inserting
> a macro such as {{info}} then we need to make the macro content optional.
> Either by changing the macro descriptor or by changing the implementation
> to differentiate the empty content from no content specified.
>
> Thanks,
> Marius
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:05 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition with
>> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
>>
>> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a content or
>> a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
>>
>> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the content
>> and/or parameters should be edited.
>> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter, which
>> currently produces this code:
>>
>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>    <div class="title">
>>      <span class="icon info"></span>
>>      some title
>>    </div>
>>    Some content
>> </div>
>>
>> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a specific
>> class around the content to tell the editor it should only allow editing
>> this content, e.g.:
>>
>> <div class="box infomessage">
>>    <div class="title">
>>      <span class="icon info"></span>
>>      some title
>>    </div>
>>    <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
>> </div>
>>
>> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute and to
>> ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as for
>> a parameter named foo:
>>
>> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo parameter
>> value</span>
>>
>> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases such as:
>> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
>> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
>> parameter</span></span>
>>
>> So:
>>    1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named "editable-content"
>> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
>>    2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
>> editing of parameters?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>> --
>> Simon Urli
>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>> [hidden email]
>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:05 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Thomas, I'm looking at how the editor can save the macro content edited
> in-line and there are two options I think:
>
> (1) The editor does a separate request to a dedicated service to convert
> the macro content from HTML, before the entire page content is saved
> (2) The editor marks the macro calls that need to be converted and the
> conversion is done when the entire page content is converted
>
> I think the second option makes more sense. We already convert the page
> content from HTML to wiki syntax. We could also convert the macro content
> in the same flow, if needed.
>
> Note that we can't do the conversion of the macro content every time the
> page content is converted. We need to convert the macro content from HTML
> only if the editor says that is has been edited in-line. There are at least
> 2 cases when the conversion is not needed:
>
> * when your insert a gadget in the dashboard (it uses the same Macro Insert
> wizard from CKEditor)
> * when the macro outputs in-line content, since the CKEditor doesn't
> properly support editing in-line widgets in-place (see my other mail)
>
> So we need away to mark the macro calls that need conversion. The macro
> marker supports only macro name, parameters and content. One idea is to use
> some "reserved" parameter, such as "__requiresHTMLConversion".
>
> WDYT?

Yes +1 for (2), that's the safest and what makes the most sense anyway.

For the marker I'm not a big fan of the parameter but hard to find a
retro compatible syntax otherwise (we should have put keywords in the
initial annotation syntax instead of just the ordered values...).

Now a marker is not enough, you also need to indicate the target
syntax (the html parser might now know it) in which it needs to be
converted. Also we need something which support parameters conversion
too since it's planned. Finally I think I would prefer something even
more collision proof.

For example:

[[convert:__content]]=xwiki/2.1
param1="<strong>toto</strong>" [[convert:param1]]="xwiki/2.1"

or

[[convert:xwiki/2.1:__content]]="" ("" is just ignored, probably
better to make the html parser support not having a value at all which
might already be the case, I don't remember)
[[convert:xwiki/2.1:param1]]="<strong>toto</strong>"

>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:42 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I've started implementing this on the WYSIWYG editor side and there are
> > two constraints that we need to be aware:
> >
> >
> > (1) Macro#supportsInlineMode() must be false
> >
> > The CKEditor handles macros as widgets
> > <https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/guide/widget_sdk_intro.html>
> > and widgets can have nested editable parts, which is great, BUT these
> > nested editable parts must have a block-level element as parent. The list
> > of elements that are accepted as in place editing hosts can be found here
> > https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/api/CKEDITOR_dtd.html#property-S-editable
> > . This means that only block-level widgets can be edited in place. As a
> > consequence, only block-level macros can be edited in place. There's an
> > open issue about this https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> > but I can't tell if it's going to be fixed soon or not.
> >
> > What options do we have?
> >
> > (a) enable in place editing only for macros that have supportsInlineMode
> > false; that's the easiest but it excludes from the start macros such as
> > info, error, warning, which is a pity.
> > (b) activate in place editing only when the macro generates block level
> > content; this means that the users will be able to edit in place a warning
> > macro that is standalone, such as:
> >
> > -----8<-----
> > before
> >
> > {{warning}}message{{/warning}}
> >
> > after
> > ----->8-----
> >
> > but not a warning macro that is inside some paragraph text, such as:
> >
> > -----8<-----
> > before {{warning}}message{{/warning}} after
> > ----->8-----
> >
> > The issue is that we don't always know if the macro output is block-level
> > until we render the macro so hiding the macro content text area when
> > inserting a macro is not easy.
> >
> > (c) Try to implement https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> > ourselves, but I don't think it's easy
> > (d) Don't use widgets to support macros and implement something custom. I
> > think this is crazy.
> >
> >
> > (2) The second constraint is that the macro content must not be mandatory.
> >
> > ATM both {{info/}} and {{info}}{{/info}} generate "The required content is
> > missing." and so do the other macros I've tested. So it seems there's no
> > distinction between empty content and no content at the implementation
> > level. Thus, if we want to hide the macro content text area when inserting
> > a macro such as {{info}} then we need to make the macro content optional.
> > Either by changing the macro descriptor or by changing the implementation
> > to differentiate the empty content from no content specified.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Marius
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:05 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition with
> >> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
> >>
> >> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a content or
> >> a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
> >>
> >> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the content
> >> and/or parameters should be edited.
> >> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter, which
> >> currently produces this code:
> >>
> >> <div class="box infomessage">
> >>    <div class="title">
> >>      <span class="icon info"></span>
> >>      some title
> >>    </div>
> >>    Some content
> >> </div>
> >>
> >> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a specific
> >> class around the content to tell the editor it should only allow editing
> >> this content, e.g.:
> >>
> >> <div class="box infomessage">
> >>    <div class="title">
> >>      <span class="icon info"></span>
> >>      some title
> >>    </div>
> >>    <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
> >> </div>
> >>
> >> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute and to
> >> ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as for
> >> a parameter named foo:
> >>
> >> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo parameter
> >> value</span>
> >>
> >> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases such as:
> >> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
> >> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
> >> parameter</span></span>
> >>
> >> So:
> >>    1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named "editable-content"
> >> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
> >>    2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
> >> editing of parameters?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Simon
> >> --
> >> Simon Urli
> >> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> >> [hidden email]
> >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >>
> >



--
Thomas Mortagne
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Marius Dumitru Florea
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:20 AM Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:05 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Thomas, I'm looking at how the editor can save the macro content edited
> > in-line and there are two options I think:
> >
> > (1) The editor does a separate request to a dedicated service to convert
> > the macro content from HTML, before the entire page content is saved
> > (2) The editor marks the macro calls that need to be converted and the
> > conversion is done when the entire page content is converted
> >
> > I think the second option makes more sense. We already convert the page
> > content from HTML to wiki syntax. We could also convert the macro content
> > in the same flow, if needed.
> >
> > Note that we can't do the conversion of the macro content every time the
> > page content is converted. We need to convert the macro content from HTML
> > only if the editor says that is has been edited in-line. There are at
> least
> > 2 cases when the conversion is not needed:
> >
> > * when your insert a gadget in the dashboard (it uses the same Macro
> Insert
> > wizard from CKEditor)
> > * when the macro outputs in-line content, since the CKEditor doesn't
> > properly support editing in-line widgets in-place (see my other mail)
> >
> > So we need away to mark the macro calls that need conversion. The macro
> > marker supports only macro name, parameters and content. One idea is to
> use
> > some "reserved" parameter, such as "__requiresHTMLConversion".
> >
> > WDYT?
>
> Yes +1 for (2), that's the safest and what makes the most sense anyway.
>
> For the marker I'm not a big fan of the parameter but hard to find a
> retro compatible syntax otherwise (we should have put keywords in the
> initial annotation syntax instead of just the ordered values...).
>
>

> Now a marker is not enough, you also need to indicate the target
> syntax (the html parser might now know it) in which it needs to be
> converted.


I was thinking that the parser (or some filter before the parser is called)
could use the SyntaxDescriptor component from
https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-rendering/pull/145/files to determine the
target syntax for the macro content based on the macro parameters.
Indicating the syntax in the macro call is OK as long as the syntax is
static and the editor gets it from the meta data attributes. But if the
content syntax depends on the macro parameters then the editor needs to
make a request to compute the syntax each time the macro parameters are
modified.

Also we need something which support parameters conversion
> too since it's planned.


I agree.


> Finally I think I would prefer something even
> more collision proof.
>
> For example:
>
> [[convert:__content]]=xwiki/2.1
> param1="<strong>toto</strong>" [[convert:param1]]="xwiki/2.1"
>
> or
>
> [[convert:xwiki/2.1:__content]]="" ("" is just ignored, probably
> better to make the html parser support not having a value at all which
> might already be the case, I don't remember)
> [[convert:xwiki/2.1:param1]]="<strong>toto</strong>"
>

Both look fine (with a slightly preference towards the first option) but
I'm not convinced we need to specify the syntax. The parser has the macro
call so it knows the macro and the parameter values so it could determine
the syntax.


>
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:42 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I've started implementing this on the WYSIWYG editor side and there are
> > > two constraints that we need to be aware:
> > >
> > >
> > > (1) Macro#supportsInlineMode() must be false
> > >
> > > The CKEditor handles macros as widgets
> > > <
> https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/guide/widget_sdk_intro.html>
> > > and widgets can have nested editable parts, which is great, BUT these
> > > nested editable parts must have a block-level element as parent. The
> list
> > > of elements that are accepted as in place editing hosts can be found
> here
> > >
> https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/api/CKEDITOR_dtd.html#property-S-editable
> > > . This means that only block-level widgets can be edited in place. As a
> > > consequence, only block-level macros can be edited in place. There's an
> > > open issue about this
> https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> > > but I can't tell if it's going to be fixed soon or not.
> > >
> > > What options do we have?
> > >
> > > (a) enable in place editing only for macros that have
> supportsInlineMode
> > > false; that's the easiest but it excludes from the start macros such as
> > > info, error, warning, which is a pity.
> > > (b) activate in place editing only when the macro generates block level
> > > content; this means that the users will be able to edit in place a
> warning
> > > macro that is standalone, such as:
> > >
> > > -----8<-----
> > > before
> > >
> > > {{warning}}message{{/warning}}
> > >
> > > after
> > > ----->8-----
> > >
> > > but not a warning macro that is inside some paragraph text, such as:
> > >
> > > -----8<-----
> > > before {{warning}}message{{/warning}} after
> > > ----->8-----
> > >
> > > The issue is that we don't always know if the macro output is
> block-level
> > > until we render the macro so hiding the macro content text area when
> > > inserting a macro is not easy.
> > >
> > > (c) Try to implement
> https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> > > ourselves, but I don't think it's easy
> > > (d) Don't use widgets to support macros and implement something
> custom. I
> > > think this is crazy.
> > >
> > >
> > > (2) The second constraint is that the macro content must not be
> mandatory.
> > >
> > > ATM both {{info/}} and {{info}}{{/info}} generate "The required
> content is
> > > missing." and so do the other macros I've tested. So it seems there's
> no
> > > distinction between empty content and no content at the implementation
> > > level. Thus, if we want to hide the macro content text area when
> inserting
> > > a macro such as {{info}} then we need to make the macro content
> optional.
> > > Either by changing the macro descriptor or by changing the
> implementation
> > > to differentiate the empty content from no content specified.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Marius
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:05 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>
> > >> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition with
> > >> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
> > >>
> > >> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a content
> or
> > >> a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
> > >>
> > >> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the content
> > >> and/or parameters should be edited.
> > >> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter, which
> > >> currently produces this code:
> > >>
> > >> <div class="box infomessage">
> > >>    <div class="title">
> > >>      <span class="icon info"></span>
> > >>      some title
> > >>    </div>
> > >>    Some content
> > >> </div>
> > >>
> > >> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a specific
> > >> class around the content to tell the editor it should only allow
> editing
> > >> this content, e.g.:
> > >>
> > >> <div class="box infomessage">
> > >>    <div class="title">
> > >>      <span class="icon info"></span>
> > >>      some title
> > >>    </div>
> > >>    <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
> > >> </div>
> > >>
> > >> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute and
> to
> > >> ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as
> for
> > >> a parameter named foo:
> > >>
> > >> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo parameter
> > >> value</span>
> > >>
> > >> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases such
> as:
> > >> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
> > >> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
> > >> parameter</span></span>
> > >>
> > >> So:
> > >>    1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named "editable-content"
> > >> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
> > >>    2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
> > >> editing of parameters?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Simon
> > >> --
> > >> Simon Urli
> > >> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> > >>
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:20 AM Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:05 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thomas, I'm looking at how the editor can save the macro content edited
> > > in-line and there are two options I think:
> > >
> > > (1) The editor does a separate request to a dedicated service to convert
> > > the macro content from HTML, before the entire page content is saved
> > > (2) The editor marks the macro calls that need to be converted and the
> > > conversion is done when the entire page content is converted
> > >
> > > I think the second option makes more sense. We already convert the page
> > > content from HTML to wiki syntax. We could also convert the macro content
> > > in the same flow, if needed.
> > >
> > > Note that we can't do the conversion of the macro content every time the
> > > page content is converted. We need to convert the macro content from HTML
> > > only if the editor says that is has been edited in-line. There are at
> > least
> > > 2 cases when the conversion is not needed:
> > >
> > > * when your insert a gadget in the dashboard (it uses the same Macro
> > Insert
> > > wizard from CKEditor)
> > > * when the macro outputs in-line content, since the CKEditor doesn't
> > > properly support editing in-line widgets in-place (see my other mail)
> > >
> > > So we need away to mark the macro calls that need conversion. The macro
> > > marker supports only macro name, parameters and content. One idea is to
> > use
> > > some "reserved" parameter, such as "__requiresHTMLConversion".
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> >
> > Yes +1 for (2), that's the safest and what makes the most sense anyway.
> >
> > For the marker I'm not a big fan of the parameter but hard to find a
> > retro compatible syntax otherwise (we should have put keywords in the
> > initial annotation syntax instead of just the ordered values...).
> >
> >
>
> > Now a marker is not enough, you also need to indicate the target
> > syntax (the html parser might now know it) in which it needs to be
> > converted.
>
>
> I was thinking that the parser (or some filter before the parser is called)
> could use the SyntaxDescriptor component from
> https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-rendering/pull/145/files to determine the
> target syntax for the macro content based on the macro parameters.
> Indicating the syntax in the macro call is OK as long as the syntax is
> static and the editor gets it from the meta data attributes. But if the
> content syntax depends on the macro parameters then the editor needs to
> make a request to compute the syntax each time the macro parameters are
> modified.

SyntaxDescriptor is useless, knowing the macro won't give you the
syntax in many cases since you need the current syntax in a given
context. But yes for very standard macros this could be found in the
context and previous metadata blocks (provided the user did not
removed a metadata block by mistake, I guess the WYSIWYG could have
some protection against that).

My point was more about future custom inline editors we talked about
for which it would be much easier if they can explicitly give the
information if there is a transformation need.

>
> Also we need something which support parameters conversion
> > too since it's planned.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
> > Finally I think I would prefer something even
> > more collision proof.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > [[convert:__content]]=xwiki/2.1
> > param1="<strong>toto</strong>" [[convert:param1]]="xwiki/2.1"
> >
> > or
> >
> > [[convert:xwiki/2.1:__content]]="" ("" is just ignored, probably
> > better to make the html parser support not having a value at all which
> > might already be the case, I don't remember)
> > [[convert:xwiki/2.1:param1]]="<strong>toto</strong>"
> >
>
> Both look fine (with a slightly preference towards the first option) but
> I'm not convinced we need to specify the syntax. The parser has the macro
> call so it knows the macro and the parameter values so it could determine
> the syntax.

Anyway, I though about it a bit more and I think we don't need to
introduce anything in the macro annotation: the same metadata the
WYSIWYG is using to know that a content is editable could be used by
the HTML parser to know it should convert it instead of getting it
from the annotation. And this metadata is planned to support
parameters too. It also cover future custom editors need since there
is a metadata for the syntax.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:42 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I've started implementing this on the WYSIWYG editor side and there are
> > > > two constraints that we need to be aware:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (1) Macro#supportsInlineMode() must be false
> > > >
> > > > The CKEditor handles macros as widgets
> > > > <
> > https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/guide/widget_sdk_intro.html>
> > > > and widgets can have nested editable parts, which is great, BUT these
> > > > nested editable parts must have a block-level element as parent. The
> > list
> > > > of elements that are accepted as in place editing hosts can be found
> > here
> > > >
> > https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/api/CKEDITOR_dtd.html#property-S-editable
> > > > . This means that only block-level widgets can be edited in place. As a
> > > > consequence, only block-level macros can be edited in place. There's an
> > > > open issue about this
> > https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> > > > but I can't tell if it's going to be fixed soon or not.
> > > >
> > > > What options do we have?
> > > >
> > > > (a) enable in place editing only for macros that have
> > supportsInlineMode
> > > > false; that's the easiest but it excludes from the start macros such as
> > > > info, error, warning, which is a pity.
> > > > (b) activate in place editing only when the macro generates block level
> > > > content; this means that the users will be able to edit in place a
> > warning
> > > > macro that is standalone, such as:
> > > >
> > > > -----8<-----
> > > > before
> > > >
> > > > {{warning}}message{{/warning}}
> > > >
> > > > after
> > > > ----->8-----
> > > >
> > > > but not a warning macro that is inside some paragraph text, such as:
> > > >
> > > > -----8<-----
> > > > before {{warning}}message{{/warning}} after
> > > > ----->8-----
> > > >
> > > > The issue is that we don't always know if the macro output is
> > block-level
> > > > until we render the macro so hiding the macro content text area when
> > > > inserting a macro is not easy.
> > > >
> > > > (c) Try to implement
> > https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> > > > ourselves, but I don't think it's easy
> > > > (d) Don't use widgets to support macros and implement something
> > custom. I
> > > > think this is crazy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (2) The second constraint is that the macro content must not be
> > mandatory.
> > > >
> > > > ATM both {{info/}} and {{info}}{{/info}} generate "The required
> > content is
> > > > missing." and so do the other macros I've tested. So it seems there's
> > no
> > > > distinction between empty content and no content at the implementation
> > > > level. Thus, if we want to hide the macro content text area when
> > inserting
> > > > a macro such as {{info}} then we need to make the macro content
> > optional.
> > > > Either by changing the macro descriptor or by changing the
> > implementation
> > > > to differentiate the empty content from no content specified.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Marius
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:05 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition with
> > > >> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
> > > >>
> > > >> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a content
> > or
> > > >> a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
> > > >>
> > > >> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the content
> > > >> and/or parameters should be edited.
> > > >> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter, which
> > > >> currently produces this code:
> > > >>
> > > >> <div class="box infomessage">
> > > >>    <div class="title">
> > > >>      <span class="icon info"></span>
> > > >>      some title
> > > >>    </div>
> > > >>    Some content
> > > >> </div>
> > > >>
> > > >> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a specific
> > > >> class around the content to tell the editor it should only allow
> > editing
> > > >> this content, e.g.:
> > > >>
> > > >> <div class="box infomessage">
> > > >>    <div class="title">
> > > >>      <span class="icon info"></span>
> > > >>      some title
> > > >>    </div>
> > > >>    <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
> > > >> </div>
> > > >>
> > > >> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute and
> > to
> > > >> ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such as
> > for
> > > >> a parameter named foo:
> > > >>
> > > >> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo parameter
> > > >> value</span>
> > > >>
> > > >> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases such
> > as:
> > > >> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
> > > >> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
> > > >> parameter</span></span>
> > > >>
> > > >> So:
> > > >>    1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named "editable-content"
> > > >> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
> > > >>    2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
> > > >> editing of parameters?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Simon
> > > >> --
> > > >> Simon Urli
> > > >> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> > > >>
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Mortagne
> >



--
Thomas Mortagne
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Marius Dumitru Florea
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:20 AM Thomas Mortagne <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:05 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thomas, I'm looking at how the editor can save the macro content
> edited
> > > > in-line and there are two options I think:
> > > >
> > > > (1) The editor does a separate request to a dedicated service to
> convert
> > > > the macro content from HTML, before the entire page content is saved
> > > > (2) The editor marks the macro calls that need to be converted and
> the
> > > > conversion is done when the entire page content is converted
> > > >
> > > > I think the second option makes more sense. We already convert the
> page
> > > > content from HTML to wiki syntax. We could also convert the macro
> content
> > > > in the same flow, if needed.
> > > >
> > > > Note that we can't do the conversion of the macro content every time
> the
> > > > page content is converted. We need to convert the macro content from
> HTML
> > > > only if the editor says that is has been edited in-line. There are at
> > > least
> > > > 2 cases when the conversion is not needed:
> > > >
> > > > * when your insert a gadget in the dashboard (it uses the same Macro
> > > Insert
> > > > wizard from CKEditor)
> > > > * when the macro outputs in-line content, since the CKEditor doesn't
> > > > properly support editing in-line widgets in-place (see my other mail)
> > > >
> > > > So we need away to mark the macro calls that need conversion. The
> macro
> > > > marker supports only macro name, parameters and content. One idea is
> to
> > > use
> > > > some "reserved" parameter, such as "__requiresHTMLConversion".
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > Yes +1 for (2), that's the safest and what makes the most sense anyway.
> > >
> > > For the marker I'm not a big fan of the parameter but hard to find a
> > > retro compatible syntax otherwise (we should have put keywords in the
> > > initial annotation syntax instead of just the ordered values...).
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > Now a marker is not enough, you also need to indicate the target
> > > syntax (the html parser might now know it) in which it needs to be
> > > converted.
> >
> >
> > I was thinking that the parser (or some filter before the parser is
> called)
> > could use the SyntaxDescriptor component from
> > https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-rendering/pull/145/files to determine the
> > target syntax for the macro content based on the macro parameters.
> > Indicating the syntax in the macro call is OK as long as the syntax is
> > static and the editor gets it from the meta data attributes. But if the
> > content syntax depends on the macro parameters then the editor needs to
> > make a request to compute the syntax each time the macro parameters are
> > modified.
>
> SyntaxDescriptor is useless, knowing the macro won't give you the
> syntax in many cases since you need the current syntax in a given
> context. But yes for very standard macros this could be found in the
> context and previous metadata blocks (provided the user did not
> removed a metadata block by mistake, I guess the WYSIWYG could have
> some protection against that).
>
> My point was more about future custom inline editors we talked about
> for which it would be much easier if they can explicitly give the
> information if there is a transformation need.
>
> >
> > Also we need something which support parameters conversion
> > > too since it's planned.
> >
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> >
> > > Finally I think I would prefer something even
> > > more collision proof.
> > >
> > > For example:
> > >
> > > [[convert:__content]]=xwiki/2.1
> > > param1="<strong>toto</strong>" [[convert:param1]]="xwiki/2.1"
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > [[convert:xwiki/2.1:__content]]="" ("" is just ignored, probably
> > > better to make the html parser support not having a value at all which
> > > might already be the case, I don't remember)
> > > [[convert:xwiki/2.1:param1]]="<strong>toto</strong>"
> > >
> >
> > Both look fine (with a slightly preference towards the first option) but
> > I'm not convinced we need to specify the syntax. The parser has the macro
> > call so it knows the macro and the parameter values so it could determine
> > the syntax.
>
>

> Anyway, I though about it a bit more and I think we don't need to
> introduce anything in the macro annotation: the same metadata the
> WYSIWYG is using to know that a content is editable could be used by
> the HTML parser to know it should convert it instead of getting it
> from the annotation. And this metadata is planned to support
> parameters too. It also cover future custom editors need since there
> is a metadata for the syntax.
>

ATM the WYSIWYG editor sends back *only* the macro markers. The macro
output is simply ignored on save because up until now all the information
that was needed was available in the macro marker so sending the macro
output was useless. It's not clear to me how the HTML parser will behave
because:

* it will find a macro marker
* it will have to continue parsing the macro *output* in case it finds a
meta data block
* it will have to discard the parsed macro output whether it finds the meta
data block or not

Maybe the editor could send the macro markers and any meta data elements
that it finds within the macro output, discarding everything else. So
basically, on save, the editor looks for meta data elements inside the
macro output, extracts them, removes everything between the macro start /
end markers and inserts the extracted meta data elements. This way the
editor sends back only the relevant content.

WDYT?

Thanks,
Marius


> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:42 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've started implementing this on the WYSIWYG editor side and
> there are
> > > > > two constraints that we need to be aware:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) Macro#supportsInlineMode() must be false
> > > > >
> > > > > The CKEditor handles macros as widgets
> > > > > <
> > > https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/guide/widget_sdk_intro.html
> >
> > > > > and widgets can have nested editable parts, which is great, BUT
> these
> > > > > nested editable parts must have a block-level element as parent.
> The
> > > list
> > > > > of elements that are accepted as in place editing hosts can be
> found
> > > here
> > > > >
> > >
> https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/api/CKEDITOR_dtd.html#property-S-editable
> > > > > . This means that only block-level widgets can be edited in place.
> As a
> > > > > consequence, only block-level macros can be edited in place.
> There's an
> > > > > open issue about this
> > > https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> > > > > but I can't tell if it's going to be fixed soon or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > What options do we have?
> > > > >
> > > > > (a) enable in place editing only for macros that have
> > > supportsInlineMode
> > > > > false; that's the easiest but it excludes from the start macros
> such as
> > > > > info, error, warning, which is a pity.
> > > > > (b) activate in place editing only when the macro generates block
> level
> > > > > content; this means that the users will be able to edit in place a
> > > warning
> > > > > macro that is standalone, such as:
> > > > >
> > > > > -----8<-----
> > > > > before
> > > > >
> > > > > {{warning}}message{{/warning}}
> > > > >
> > > > > after
> > > > > ----->8-----
> > > > >
> > > > > but not a warning macro that is inside some paragraph text, such
> as:
> > > > >
> > > > > -----8<-----
> > > > > before {{warning}}message{{/warning}} after
> > > > > ----->8-----
> > > > >
> > > > > The issue is that we don't always know if the macro output is
> > > block-level
> > > > > until we render the macro so hiding the macro content text area
> when
> > > > > inserting a macro is not easy.
> > > > >
> > > > > (c) Try to implement
> > > https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> > > > > ourselves, but I don't think it's easy
> > > > > (d) Don't use widgets to support macros and implement something
> > > custom. I
> > > > > think this is crazy.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) The second constraint is that the macro content must not be
> > > mandatory.
> > > > >
> > > > > ATM both {{info/}} and {{info}}{{/info}} generate "The required
> > > content is
> > > > > missing." and so do the other macros I've tested. So it seems
> there's
> > > no
> > > > > distinction between empty content and no content at the
> implementation
> > > > > level. Thus, if we want to hide the macro content text area when
> > > inserting
> > > > > a macro such as {{info}} then we need to make the macro content
> > > optional.
> > > > > Either by changing the macro descriptor or by changing the
> > > implementation
> > > > > to differentiate the empty content from no content specified.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Marius
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:05 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition
> with
> > > > >> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a
> content
> > > or
> > > > >> a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the
> content
> > > > >> and/or parameters should be edited.
> > > > >> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter,
> which
> > > > >> currently produces this code:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <div class="box infomessage">
> > > > >>    <div class="title">
> > > > >>      <span class="icon info"></span>
> > > > >>      some title
> > > > >>    </div>
> > > > >>    Some content
> > > > >> </div>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a
> specific
> > > > >> class around the content to tell the editor it should only allow
> > > editing
> > > > >> this content, e.g.:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <div class="box infomessage">
> > > > >>    <div class="title">
> > > > >>      <span class="icon info"></span>
> > > > >>      some title
> > > > >>    </div>
> > > > >>    <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
> > > > >> </div>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute
> and
> > > to
> > > > >> ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such
> as
> > > for
> > > > >> a parameter named foo:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo
> parameter
> > > > >> value</span>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases
> such
> > > as:
> > > > >> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
> > > > >> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
> > > > >> parameter</span></span>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So:
> > > > >>    1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named
> "editable-content"
> > > > >> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
> > > > >>    2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
> > > > >> editing of parameters?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Simon
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Simon Urli
> > > > >> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Mortagne
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Macro inline edition

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:48 AM Marius Dumitru Florea
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:20 AM Thomas Mortagne <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:05 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
> > > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thomas, I'm looking at how the editor can save the macro content
> > edited
> > > > > in-line and there are two options I think:
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) The editor does a separate request to a dedicated service to
> > convert
> > > > > the macro content from HTML, before the entire page content is saved
> > > > > (2) The editor marks the macro calls that need to be converted and
> > the
> > > > > conversion is done when the entire page content is converted
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the second option makes more sense. We already convert the
> > page
> > > > > content from HTML to wiki syntax. We could also convert the macro
> > content
> > > > > in the same flow, if needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that we can't do the conversion of the macro content every time
> > the
> > > > > page content is converted. We need to convert the macro content from
> > HTML
> > > > > only if the editor says that is has been edited in-line. There are at
> > > > least
> > > > > 2 cases when the conversion is not needed:
> > > > >
> > > > > * when your insert a gadget in the dashboard (it uses the same Macro
> > > > Insert
> > > > > wizard from CKEditor)
> > > > > * when the macro outputs in-line content, since the CKEditor doesn't
> > > > > properly support editing in-line widgets in-place (see my other mail)
> > > > >
> > > > > So we need away to mark the macro calls that need conversion. The
> > macro
> > > > > marker supports only macro name, parameters and content. One idea is
> > to
> > > > use
> > > > > some "reserved" parameter, such as "__requiresHTMLConversion".
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > Yes +1 for (2), that's the safest and what makes the most sense anyway.
> > > >
> > > > For the marker I'm not a big fan of the parameter but hard to find a
> > > > retro compatible syntax otherwise (we should have put keywords in the
> > > > initial annotation syntax instead of just the ordered values...).
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Now a marker is not enough, you also need to indicate the target
> > > > syntax (the html parser might now know it) in which it needs to be
> > > > converted.
> > >
> > >
> > > I was thinking that the parser (or some filter before the parser is
> > called)
> > > could use the SyntaxDescriptor component from
> > > https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-rendering/pull/145/files to determine the
> > > target syntax for the macro content based on the macro parameters.
> > > Indicating the syntax in the macro call is OK as long as the syntax is
> > > static and the editor gets it from the meta data attributes. But if the
> > > content syntax depends on the macro parameters then the editor needs to
> > > make a request to compute the syntax each time the macro parameters are
> > > modified.
> >
> > SyntaxDescriptor is useless, knowing the macro won't give you the
> > syntax in many cases since you need the current syntax in a given
> > context. But yes for very standard macros this could be found in the
> > context and previous metadata blocks (provided the user did not
> > removed a metadata block by mistake, I guess the WYSIWYG could have
> > some protection against that).
> >
> > My point was more about future custom inline editors we talked about
> > for which it would be much easier if they can explicitly give the
> > information if there is a transformation need.
> >
> > >
> > > Also we need something which support parameters conversion
> > > > too since it's planned.
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Finally I think I would prefer something even
> > > > more collision proof.
> > > >
> > > > For example:
> > > >
> > > > [[convert:__content]]=xwiki/2.1
> > > > param1="<strong>toto</strong>" [[convert:param1]]="xwiki/2.1"
> > > >
> > > > or
> > > >
> > > > [[convert:xwiki/2.1:__content]]="" ("" is just ignored, probably
> > > > better to make the html parser support not having a value at all which
> > > > might already be the case, I don't remember)
> > > > [[convert:xwiki/2.1:param1]]="<strong>toto</strong>"
> > > >
> > >
> > > Both look fine (with a slightly preference towards the first option) but
> > > I'm not convinced we need to specify the syntax. The parser has the macro
> > > call so it knows the macro and the parameter values so it could determine
> > > the syntax.
> >
> >
>
> > Anyway, I though about it a bit more and I think we don't need to
> > introduce anything in the macro annotation: the same metadata the
> > WYSIWYG is using to know that a content is editable could be used by
> > the HTML parser to know it should convert it instead of getting it
> > from the annotation. And this metadata is planned to support
> > parameters too. It also cover future custom editors need since there
> > is a metadata for the syntax.
> >
>
> ATM the WYSIWYG editor sends back *only* the macro markers. The macro
> output is simply ignored on save because up until now all the information
> that was needed was available in the macro marker so sending the macro
> output was useless. It's not clear to me how the HTML parser will behave
> because:
>
> * it will find a macro marker
> * it will have to continue parsing the macro *output* in case it finds a
> meta data block
> * it will have to discard the parsed macro output whether it finds the meta
> data block or not

If there is something the parser have to parse it in practice, you
can't just jump to the end without knowing where is the end. It's just
that instead of igoring everything but the end macro marker it will
catch metadatas along the way to know if it should start/stop stacking
events for later and know the current target syntax.
Then when reaching the end macro the parser will decide what to do. If
tagged content has been found, serialize the events in the target
syntax otherwise just send the startmacro content as now). Same logic
for the parameters when support for parameters inline editing will be
added.

>
> Maybe the editor could send the macro markers and any meta data elements
> that it finds within the macro output, discarding everything else. So
> basically, on save, the editor looks for meta data elements inside the
> macro output, extracts them, removes everything between the macro start /
> end markers and inserts the extracted meta data elements. This way the
> editor sends back only the relevant content.

As you want but I don't think the WYSIWYG really need to bother.
Technically it does not really change much for the parser to have
everything or only the metadata except a minor optimization because we
transmit less data.

>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Marius
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:42 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've started implementing this on the WYSIWYG editor side and
> > there are
> > > > > > two constraints that we need to be aware:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) Macro#supportsInlineMode() must be false
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The CKEditor handles macros as widgets
> > > > > > <
> > > > https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/guide/widget_sdk_intro.html
> > >
> > > > > > and widgets can have nested editable parts, which is great, BUT
> > these
> > > > > > nested editable parts must have a block-level element as parent.
> > The
> > > > list
> > > > > > of elements that are accepted as in place editing hosts can be
> > found
> > > > here
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://ckeditor.com/docs/ckeditor4/latest/api/CKEDITOR_dtd.html#property-S-editable
> > > > > > . This means that only block-level widgets can be edited in place.
> > As a
> > > > > > consequence, only block-level macros can be edited in place.
> > There's an
> > > > > > open issue about this
> > > > https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> > > > > > but I can't tell if it's going to be fixed soon or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What options do we have?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (a) enable in place editing only for macros that have
> > > > supportsInlineMode
> > > > > > false; that's the easiest but it excludes from the start macros
> > such as
> > > > > > info, error, warning, which is a pity.
> > > > > > (b) activate in place editing only when the macro generates block
> > level
> > > > > > content; this means that the users will be able to edit in place a
> > > > warning
> > > > > > macro that is standalone, such as:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----8<-----
> > > > > > before
> > > > > >
> > > > > > {{warning}}message{{/warning}}
> > > > > >
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > ----->8-----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but not a warning macro that is inside some paragraph text, such
> > as:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----8<-----
> > > > > > before {{warning}}message{{/warning}} after
> > > > > > ----->8-----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The issue is that we don't always know if the macro output is
> > > > block-level
> > > > > > until we render the macro so hiding the macro content text area
> > when
> > > > > > inserting a macro is not easy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (c) Try to implement
> > > > https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor-dev/issues/1091
> > > > > > ourselves, but I don't think it's easy
> > > > > > (d) Don't use widgets to support macros and implement something
> > > > custom. I
> > > > > > think this is crazy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (2) The second constraint is that the macro content must not be
> > > > mandatory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ATM both {{info/}} and {{info}}{{/info}} generate "The required
> > > > content is
> > > > > > missing." and so do the other macros I've tested. So it seems
> > there's
> > > > no
> > > > > > distinction between empty content and no content at the
> > implementation
> > > > > > level. Thus, if we want to hide the macro content text area when
> > > > inserting
> > > > > > a macro such as {{info}} then we need to make the macro content
> > > > optional.
> > > > > > Either by changing the macro descriptor or by changing the
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > to differentiate the empty content from no content specified.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Marius
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:05 PM Simon Urli <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'm working on the roadmap issues related to the inline edition
> > with
> > > > > >> WYSIWYG editor for macro content and macro parameters.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The first step is to add a flag to allow user specify that a
> > content
> > > > or
> > > > > >> a parameter can be edited inline with the WYSIWYG editor.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The second step is to allow the CKEditor to detect where the
> > content
> > > > > >> and/or parameters should be edited.
> > > > > >> Let's take the exampe of a simple macro without any parameter,
> > which
> > > > > >> currently produces this code:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> <div class="box infomessage">
> > > > > >>    <div class="title">
> > > > > >>      <span class="icon info"></span>
> > > > > >>      some title
> > > > > >>    </div>
> > > > > >>    Some content
> > > > > >> </div>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> We propose (me & Marius) to ask users to add a wrapper with a
> > specific
> > > > > >> class around the content to tell the editor it should only allow
> > > > editing
> > > > > >> this content, e.g.:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> <div class="box infomessage">
> > > > > >>    <div class="title">
> > > > > >>      <span class="icon info"></span>
> > > > > >>      some title
> > > > > >>    </div>
> > > > > >>    <span class="editable-content">Some content</span>
> > > > > >> </div>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> About parameters, our idea was to define a new metadata attribute
> > and
> > > > to
> > > > > >> ask users to use it for specifying the content is editable, such
> > as
> > > > for
> > > > > >> a parameter named foo:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> <span class="editable-content" data-parameter="foo">my foo
> > parameter
> > > > > >> value</span>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> However I don't know right now how the editor would manage cases
> > such
> > > > as:
> > > > > >> <span class="editable-content">Some content with <span
> > > > > >> class="editable-content" data-parameter="myparameter">a
> > > > > >> parameter</span></span>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So:
> > > > > >>    1. Do you agree on the usage of a class named
> > "editable-content"
> > > > > >> which would be used as a tag to allow inline edition?
> > > > > >>    2. WDYT about using a data-parameter and this class for inline
> > > > > >> editing of parameters?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> Simon
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Simon Urli
> > > > > >> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thomas Mortagne
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Mortagne
> >



--
Thomas Mortagne
12