On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote:

On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:

...

Hi Simon,

...

On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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). 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/contente...) 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 simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:

...

Hi Simon,

...

On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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.

...

). 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 simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Thomas Mortagne

On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <

thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com>

...

wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:

...

Hi Simon,

> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com>

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.

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? 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 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 simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

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. Thanks, Simon On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne <

thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com>

...

wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote: > > > > On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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 > simon.urli@xwiki.com > More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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. So the target syntax is the given macro syntax.

...

Thanks, Simon

On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne < thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea

...

<mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne < > thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com>

> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >> > wrote:

> >>> >>> >>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Simon, >>>> >>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>>>> >>>> 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 >>> simon.urli@xwiki.com >>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne >> >>

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

Yeah I know, too many answer mails... On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:28 PM Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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 <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne < > thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea >> <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne < >>> >> thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> >> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>>> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> simon.urli@xwiki.com >>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne >> >> -- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Thomas Mortagne

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:56 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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 <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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#HConte...): 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 <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne < >>> thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea >>>> <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne < >>>>> >>>> thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> simon.urli@xwiki.com >>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>> >>>> >> -- >> Simon Urli >> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS >> simon.urli@xwiki.com >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >> > > > > -- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

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 <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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 <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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 <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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#HConte...): 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 <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne < >>>>> thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea >>>>>> <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne < >>>>>>> >>>>>> thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> simon.urli@xwiki.com >>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Simon Urli >>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS >>>> simon.urli@xwiki.com >>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Simon Urli >> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS >> simon.urli@xwiki.com >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

Hi Thomas and all,

On 17 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:52 AM Vincent Massol <vincent@massol.net> 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 <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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 <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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 <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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#HConte...): 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 <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne < >>>>>>> thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea >>>>>>>> <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne < >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> simon.urli@xwiki.com >>>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Simon Urli >>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS >>>>>> simon.urli@xwiki.com >>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Simon Urli >>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS >>>> simon.urli@xwiki.com >>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>>> >> >> -- >> Simon Urli >> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS >> simon.urli@xwiki.com >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com > > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:16 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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

Let me try to make this even more clear. The WYSIWYG editor needs to take the following decisions:

[OPTIONAL] "Should I display the macro content (plain) text area on the Macro Edit dialog?"

If the macro content can be edited inline within the editing area then it probably make sense to not display the text area on the Macro Edit dialog. But for this we need some *static* information in the macro descriptor to indicate that the macro content can be edited inline.

[MANDATORY] "Should I enable inline editing for this macro?"

The WYSIWYG editor can scan the macro output DOM (HTML) for some special markers (attributes) to determine if the macro content can be edited inline

[MANDATORY] "To which syntax do I need to convert the HTML from the macro content?"

When saving the page the editor needs to convert the macro content from HTML to some syntax. The target syntax needs to be specified either in the macro output DOM (HTML) using some attributes or in the macro descriptor.

That's only if the syntax is different from the current syntax (which is not the case for most inline edited macros containing wiki content).

Hope this helps, Marius

...

...

Thanks, Simon

On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne < thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea > <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne < >> > thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> > >> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>> >> wrote: > >> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>> >>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> simon.urli@xwiki.com >>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thomas Mortagne >>> >>> > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne > > -- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:27 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:16 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com>

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

Let me try to make this even more clear. The WYSIWYG editor needs to take the following decisions:

[OPTIONAL] "Should I display the macro content (plain) text area on the Macro Edit dialog?"

If the macro content can be edited inline within the editing area then it probably make sense to not display the text area on the Macro Edit dialog. But for this we need some *static* information in the macro descriptor to indicate that the macro content can be edited inline.

[MANDATORY] "Should I enable inline editing for this macro?"

The WYSIWYG editor can scan the macro output DOM (HTML) for some special markers (attributes) to determine if the macro content can be edited inline

...

[MANDATORY] "To which syntax do I need to convert the HTML from the macro content?"

When saving the page the editor needs to convert the macro content from HTML to some syntax. The target syntax needs to be specified either in the macro output DOM (HTML) using some attributes or in the macro descriptor.

...

That's only if the syntax is different from the current syntax (which is not the case for most inline edited macros containing wiki content).

Exactly! The macros we target with this feature use the current syntax (of the page where the macro is called) for their content.

My point is that the WYSIWYG know the syntax already you don't need each macro to provide it as metadata.

...

...

Hope this helps, Marius

...

...

Thanks, Simon

On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com>

wrote:

...

...

...

...

> > > > On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne < >> thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea >>> <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne < >>>> >>> thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com

...

...

...

>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> simon.urli@xwiki.com >>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thomas Mortagne >>> >>> > -- > Simon Urli > Software Engineer at XWiki SAS > simon.urli@xwiki.com > More about us at http://www.xwiki.com >

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO On 12 Sep 2018, 17:20 +0200, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com>, wrote:

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:16 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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

Let me try to make this even more clear. The WYSIWYG editor needs to take the following decisions:

[OPTIONAL] "Should I display the macro content (plain) text area on the Macro Edit dialog?"

If the macro content can be edited inline within the editing area then it probably make sense to not display the text area on the Macro Edit dialog. But for this we need some *static* information in the macro descriptor to indicate that the macro content can be edited inline.

[MANDATORY] "Should I enable inline editing for this macro?"

The WYSIWYG editor can scan the macro output DOM (HTML) for some special markers (attributes) to determine if the macro content can be edited inline

...

[MANDATORY] "To which syntax do I need to convert the HTML from the macro content?"

When saving the page the editor needs to convert the macro content from HTML to some syntax. The target syntax needs to be specified either in the macro output DOM (HTML) using some attributes or in the macro descriptor.

That's only if the syntax is different from the current syntax (which is not the case for most inline edited macros containing wiki content).

Well according to the idea that macro content, or even macro parameter could be used to render the content of the macro, this is even more complex since there could be for a single macro, multiple editable area, that could go either to a parameter or the content of the macro, and each of these areas could have a different syntax supported. I would also add that it should also be useful to communicate to the editor the type of formatting allowed in these contents. Sometime, you wish only simple inline formatting like bold, italic… but you might also support block formatting like paragraph and list. So, the editable areas should be aware of this to properly update the editor tool bar and prevent unsupported html to have to be converted. If you take a simple titled box macro, you have a title that goes to a parameter, could be plain text or better xwiki syntax, but only allow inline formatting like bold/italic/superscripts… since it is rendered in a h tag, and a macro content in full wiki syntax that could hold paragraphs, list and everything.

...

Hope this helps, Marius

...

...

Thanks, Simon

On 9/10/18 6:46 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:47 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On 9/10/18 3:24 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne < > thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:56 PM Marius Dumitru Florea > > <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Thomas Mortagne < > > > > > thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/10/18 1:35 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Sep 2018, at 13:05, Simon Urli <simon.urli@xwiki.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > simon.urli@xwiki.com > > > > > More about us at http://www.xwiki.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Thomas Mortagne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thomas Mortagne > > > > -- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

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 < mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> 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-... . 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 <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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 simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:20 AM Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:05 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> 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 < mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> 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-...

...

. 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 <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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 simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:20 AM Thomas Mortagne <

thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com>

...

wrote:

...

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:05 PM Marius Dumitru Florea <mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> 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 < mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com> 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-...

...

...

...

. 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 <simon.urli@xwiki.com> 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 simon.urli@xwiki.com More about us at http://www.xwiki.com

-- Thomas Mortagne

-- Thomas Mortagne