UseModWiki소스수정/이전수정본화면에서더블클릭

1. 이전 수정본을 보고 있는 상태에서 마우스 더블 클릭을 하면 해당 수정본 편집 화면으로 이동

1.1. wiki.pl 수정

1.2. 추가 업데이트 내역

1.3. 사용자 의견

1. 이전 수정본을 보고 있는 상태에서 마우스 더블 클릭을 하면 해당 수정본 편집 화면으로 이동

1.1. wiki.pl 수정

sub GetHtmlHeader {
    ...
        if ($ClickEdit) {
            if ($FreeLinks) {
                $id = &FreeToNormal($id);
            }
# 아래 줄을 다음과 같이 고침
#            $bodyExtra .= qq| ondblclick="location.href='$ScriptName${\(&ScriptLinkChar())}action=edit&id=$id'" |;
            my $revision = GetParam('revision','');
            if ( $revision ne '' ) {
                $bodyExtra .= qq| ondblclick="location.href='$ScriptName${\(&ScriptLinkChar())}action=edit&id=$id&revision=$revision'" |;
            }
            else {
                $bodyExtra .= qq| ondblclick="location.href='$ScriptName${\(&ScriptLinkChar())}action=edit&id=$id'" |;
            }
# 여기까지
        }
    ...
}

1.2. 추가 업데이트 내역

1.3. 사용자 의견

Maybe you're right, or maybe not.

Currently, the target link of "double-clicking" depends on the existence of "revision" argument in the current URL.

1) If a user is browsing the current revision of a page, double-clicking will bring the user to "edit current page"
2) If a user is browsing an old revision (say, for example, revision=3) of a page, double-clicking will bring him/her to "edit the content of revison 3"

(This is from your idea. Before you gave me it, double-clicking meant always "edit current page" for both cases)

However, I couldn't apply the idea to "edit section" feature. Let's assume this situation:
- A user is browsing an old revision (e.g. revision=3) of a page,
- Then, he clicks "edit section" link in the Heading "2.3"
Now the quesion is:
1) Should the user edit "section 2.3 of revision 3", or "section 2.3 of current revision"(It may not even exist)??
2) After he completes editing and clicks commit button, where should the content be inserted in the page? The content should be inserted in "current revision" of the page. But there is NO GUARANTEE that 'section 2.3 of revision 3' is same section 2.3 in the current revision.

So, I chose "NO edit-section link, when browsing OLD revisions"

I still don't know how to solve the question. So if I want to improve consistency, the only thing I can choose is to disable double-clicking for old revision.

-- Raymundo 2012-6-4 12:11 am

You mean "disabling click-edit when URL contains "diff=" parameter. I'll consider later, now now.

-- Raymundo 2012-6-4 1:45 pm

I still don't know HOW I can implement it. Let me show you an example:

"Sample" page's history is like this:

Revision 1:              Revision 2:

== Section 1 ==          == Section 1 ==
content A                content A
== Section 2 ==          == Section 2 ==
content B                content C
                         == Sectino 3 ==
                         content B

(In revision 2, new content C is inserted between A and B)

Now let's assume a user is browsing "revision 1" of "Sample" page. He sees:

== Section 1 [edit section 1] ==
content A
== Section 2 [edit section 2] ==
content B

Then he would click "edit section 2" and edit the section:

-----(edit form)------
== Section 2 ==
content B', modified by him
----------------------

Then he clicks commit button. Now, what should the revision 3 of this page be?

Revision 1:              Revision 2:             Revision 3:(expected)     Revision 3:(in real)

== Section 1 ==          == Section 1 ==         == Section 1 ==           == Section 1 ==
content A                content A               content A                 content A
== Section 2 ==          == Section 2 ==         == Section 2 ==           == Section 2 ==
content B                content C               content C                 content B', modified (HUH?)
                         == Sectino 3 ==         == Section 3 ==           == Section 3 ==
                         content B               content B', modified      content B

The user might have wished to improve "content B" and applied it to current page, but the result is losing content C and getting B as well as B'. Because wiki engine can't distinguish the user's intent. (Maybe it's in a scope of.. Artificial Intelligence or Text Analysis?)

As you said, "user knows what he is doing". But wikiengine doesn't know what the user is doing.

-- Raymundo 2012-6-4 1:45 pm

Yes :-), because I couldn't implement section editing of old revision, as I shows an illustration above.

-- Raymundo 2012-6-4 1:45 pm

Yes, it could it be. I had not seen that. I am using a wiki with double click for reviews and old sections, too. My assumption was that the user assumed that editing of old section implies to be saved its "enviroment", it is saved with the other old sections; regardless if they are edited or not edited. But, strictly it is an assumption.

I understand your rationale. Thanks for details. --JuanmaMP

May I look around that wiki? Anyway, I see what you mean. In my illustration, revision 3 would be:

Revision 1:              Revision 2:             Revision 3:(JuanmaMP's)

== Section 1 ==          == Section 1 ==         == Section 1 ==
content A                content A               content A
== Section 2 ==          == Section 2 ==         == Section 2 ==
content B                content C               content B', modified
                         == Sectino 3 ==
                         content B

Am I right? Well, that may be one of several implementation policies. Just I didn't choose it.:-)

-- Raymundo 2012-6-4 7:30 pm

You're right. That is just what I have in mind when editing old revisions.

In regard to my wiki, along some days, I can put on my homepage here, some snapshots with this subject treated here, and other "exotics" features. :)

(Still it isn't mature so far, because I have pending exactly 100 major bugs or patchs, others 100 minor bugs or patchs, and 50 minor tweaks. It's still a wiki tangled and matted). But the snapshots is a good beginning. ;)
::: Best regards, --JuanmaMP

http://gypark.pe.kr/wiki/UseModWiki%EC%86%8C%EC%8A%A4%EC%88%98%EC%A0%95/%EC%9D%B4%EC%A0%84%EC%88%98%EC%A0%95%EB%B3%B8%ED%99%94%EB%A9%B4%EC%97%90%EC%84%9C%EB%8D%94%EB%B8%94%ED%81%B4%EB%A6%AD

Hmm... what do you want exactly, the former form(with multibyte character) or the latter form(with %-encoded)? If you like the latter, use "Permalink" link in the bottom of every page. If you prefer the former... as far as I know, it depends on the behavior of web browser. Firefox always convert URL to %-encoded form. IE doesn't. I don't know how to control it.

Really? Then, users that use, for instance, korean, chinese, japanese, only for that cause, have one more reason for browsing with Explorer. D'oh! --JuanmaMP

sub DoPostMain {
...
$string =~ s/$FS//g;
+ $string = &DecodeUrl($string);
$summary =~ s/$FS//g;
... 

sub BrowsePage {
...
- $fullHtml .= &WikiToHTML($Text{'text'});
+ $Text{'text'} = &DecodeUrl($Text{'text'});
+ $fullHtml .= &WikiToHTML($Text{'text'});
...
}

I'm sorry but I can't understand what the purpose of this patch is. Could you please explain or show me example about the difference between before and after this patch?

-- Raymundo 2012-7-19 7:27 am

Ooops, I was thinking "Encode url" until now... Yeap, I see what you are saying now. :-D

I'm not sure what side effects this patch may bring, so I need time to consider it. But it is a good idea, I think. Thank you!

-- Raymundo 2012-7-19 9:34 am