[Framework-Team] Re: wicked integration w/ plone 3

Alexander Limi limi at plone.org
Fri Jan 5 21:40:32 UTC 2007


On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:33:54 -0800, Martin Aspeli  
<optilude at gmx.net> wrote:

> I don't think having TTW configuration for which *fields* should get
> the Wicked treatment makes much sense (too low level). Having a way to
> turn the behaviour on/off and possibly change the syntax choice makes
> sense.

Usually, per-content-type settings is the best combination of flexibility  
and combinatorial explosions. ;)

> But then what happens with documents using the "old" syntax? Maybe it
> can be a multi-select rather than single select, so you get:
>
> Wicked syntax:
>
>  [x] Wicked style ((words))
>  [ ] MediaWiki style [[words]]
>
> And if you untick both, you get no wicked at all?

I wouldn't even offer this. The likelihood of a document having [[]] or  
(()) without being a wiki page is extremely unlikely. This level of  
control makes no sense in the user interface, it should be reduced to a  
simple:

[ ] Support wiki-style linking

…in the content type panel. If the ability to disable selectively the [[]]  
or (()) syntax should be there, it should be in the configuration of the  
product. It's very unlikely that you want one content type to support one  
syntax, one the other, but none of them both different ones.

> In any case, I say we enable by default for documents and people can
> turn on for other things if need be.

I think it should be on for everything we ship that has a Rich Text field.  
Then you can disable it if you want. Wikis are becoming commonplace enough  
for people to expect that syntax to work, and it's unlikely to have false  
positives unless you are doing something very very specific.

One of the cases I could think of would be programming, things like  
setMethod(( blah )). Does wicked parse inside <pre> and <code> tags?

-- 
Alexander Limi · http://limi.net





More information about the Framework-Team mailing list