Comparing revisions for WikkaDevelopment

===== Wikka Development =====
{{lastedit show="3"}}

===Things in the next release===
I'm planning on putting out a small bugfix release within the next few days. If you have something that you would like to see in this release, make a note here and I'll take a look at it. -- JsnX, 26 Nov 2004

==Things to be fixed before releasing wikka-
Here's some sparse thoughts from a first test of the beta version:

~-We should update the infos on syntax highlighting in the default FormattingRules page

~-Why not adding WikkaReleaseNotes as a default page (or at least the section on what's new in the last version). As an alternative, (minimal solution) we might add a link to the WikkaReleaseNotes page on the wikka server;
~~-I'd wager that the average Wikka owner does not care as much as you and I do about the release notes. Have you noticed that the majority of Wikka sites that have been around for a while have never upgraded? Anyhow, how about an alternative:
~~- We can still have a page named WikkaReleaseNotes, but we bring back what Wakka used to do. Create an action named wikkachanges. This action will display a file in the docs directory named CHANGES.txt. We then put the action in the WikkaReleaseNotes page. This way we cover two areas: admins who have just downloaded the distribution file, and online users who want to see the changes. The wikkachanges action is live on this site right now. Try it.

~~''I saw it in the SandBox and it messed up things royally there... disabled it, and added notes about my findings.---I agree with Dartar, I'd like to see WikkaReleaseNotes included as a default page; if one doesn't look at it, fine, but at least it's there if you do need to consult what was changed (and why) and it's much more readable than what ""{{wikkachanges}}"" produces. I'd vote for just removing the ""{{wikkachanges}}"" action and simply including a WikkaReleaseNotes page. --JavaWoman''

~~Have both of you thought how this would be implemented?? It's easy to include a default page on install. However, what are we going to do on upgrade? Are we going to overwrite the page? (''Yes, of course! And that's what you'd do with a text file as well - what's the difference?'') What if the site has changed the page? (''Include a note on the page that it is a system page that **will** be overwritten on upgrade; if possible protect the page from editing by anyone but admin on install.'') I think it would be annoying for the upgrade script to overwrite an existing page. (''But you //would// be overwriting the text file - what's the difference? A page is just a more readable version. And we wouldn;'t need to keep the same information synchronbized in two places - always a bad idea.'') Hence the solution that I have proposed. In addition, how long is it going to be before someone says, "Hey, why don't we include a text file that lists the changes". (''Maybe **very** long - it hasn't happened, has it? See how it goes.'') Once again, we take care of this by including the text file and then showing it in the wiki. Sites are not going to update the Wikka release notes--it's static data. Why have it as a wiki page? (''For readability, and it fits in simply with the system. Yes, sites are not going to update the release notes - in whatever form. And if they **do** want to update them, they could do that with the text file just as easily.'')
~~~''My 2 cents. On the one hand, I agree with JW as far as //readability// is concerned: it is much better to have a formatted version, with headers etc., possibly with links, than a plain-text version (the first thing I thought when I saw the SandBox page full of raw text was : "gosh, the formatters are broken!"). This said, there is a question that none of you has mentioned so far. How are we going to deal with //internal links// that are present in the current WikkaReleaseNotes page? Either we distribute a version of WikkaReleaseNotes with no internal links and no camelcase words left or we have to think of a solution to avoid generating a ton of missing pages. IMO, one interesting solution (which might require some futher development, though) is to use a [[IncludeRemote FetchRemote]] strategy to retrieve fresh and uptodate documentation on the new release from the main server (JsnX, have you tried to install the plugin locally?). This has the advantage of avoiding writing a hardcoded page in the user's database and - as Jason was suggesting - let the user free to decide where to add the release notes (it is just a matter of adding somewhere ##""{{fetchremote page="WikkaReleaseNotes")""##). On the other hand, I was wondering: is there really a problem with //overwriting// an existing page? Provided the installer says explicitly it is going to overwrite one page, this page will be nothing more than a //version// of the page (that's the power of wikis!): if a note is added like "updated by the Wikka installer", the user will always be able to retrieve previous versions of the same page if needed. So I don't really think that overwriting is a problem. -- DarTar''

~~~~Sorry to keep hammering on this, BUT :), let's see how your logic holds up:
~~~~~Is there really a problem with //overwriting// an existing HomePage? Provided the installer says it is going to overwrite the HomePage, the new HomePage will be nothing more than a //version// of the page. The site admin will always be able to retrieve the previous version of the HomePage if needed. So I don't really think that overwriting the HomePage is a problem.
~~~~Sounds absurd, doesn't it?
~~~~~''Um, yes. What goes for the HomePage goes for the WikkaReleaseNotes: "overwriting" simply means creating a new version in the database. So I don't really think that's a problem. ;-) --JW''
~~~~~~''As I said above, I don't consider this a problem. But even if you don't agree with this, consider that no one is proposing here to overwrite a page like HomePage, but a page with a sufficiently clear 'system default' name (like WikkaReleaseNotes) that will hardly be modified by Wikka users (and if it is, again, it's just a version..). -- DarTar''

~~~~Regarding JavaWoman's comments:
~~~~~Your first point was that the installer would overwrite the text file, so why not overwrite a page.
~~~~~~That's not correct. **The site admin** would overwrite the text file, by his choice of uploading the new file to the webserver. It would be his choice to overwrite the file. See the difference?
~~~~~~''Most site admins would not "upload the [separate] files" but rather upload the archive to the server, untar it there, and then run the upgrade routine. Just untarring would replace all files. And why would one //not// replace a release notes (text) file? It contains all previous information, doesn't it?''
~~~~~Your next point was that it's a bad idea to keep the information in two places.
~~~~~~So you are suggesting that we should only make the information available online and **after the upgrade has already happened.** Wouldn't you want to know what has changed **before** you upgrade?
~~~~~~''It **is** known **before** you upgrade because it's right here. --JW''
~~~~~I could go on and on. The bottom line: it's standard for software distributions to include a text file that describes changes. This is where most people will look for the information....and they will want to review the changes before they decide to upgrade--not upgrade and then review what has changed. I'm in favor of using ""{{fetchremote}}"" to make the information available online, but also including a text file that can be reviewed offline. Here's an example of how the text file might be useful: Let's say an upgrade breaks an existing site. The admin could view the text file to help narrow his focus for fixing the problem. ... I'm going to throw in one more thing just to preempt it: But couldn't the site admin just view the release notes on WikkaWiki? That's possible, however this site might be down. It could be down from a denial-of-service attack. I could be dead and thus not able to pay the bill. Who knows? By including a text file we won't have to worry about any of this. -- JsnX
~~~~~''Actually, many applications have all their documentation online, except maybe a small readme and a license file. Most people don't download first, then unpack an archive, and then read a changes file to see what's in the latest release: they read the release notes online **before even downloading**. Sure a site can be down - that can always happen. Many possible causes (and it happens to the best of them). //As to you being dead and not being able to pay the bill - that's an entirely different discussion (one we should have, about continuity and how to ensure it, but not here in this context).// But the whole idea of including release notes is to provide a reference //after// download and installation - but that won't normally happen until **after** one has checked the release notes online to see whether it's worth the download in the first place.---My argument about keeping the information in two different places and two different formats identical still stands, meanwhile - how do you propose to make sure the two versions have identical information at all times? Even if you have a reliable procedure for that (you'll need a script) - it's extra (unneeded) work, as is creating a special action to show the contents of the text file: two files, two programs, all to show the same content? A simple page that (for now) shows just a link or (later) pulls the content directly from the site will be much simpler. -- JavaWoman''
~~~~~~''Regarding this point, I don't agree with JW's argument. I think a text version with the release notes, accessible to the Wikka administrator before untarring and uploading the package makes perfectly sense (and actually is very common in software distributions). I really don't see the problem with "keeping information in two places": before releasing a new version, the text release notes can be created in 5 seconds just by copying and pasting in a text editor the formatted output of WikkaReleaseNotes. So where's the problem? -- DarTar''

~~~~~''In referring to "keeping information in two places" I'm thinking of a build process, assuming (not the case now!) that **all** the to-be-released files are in a CVS branch, and you just run a script to turn that into a distribution. The files in that branch should -at all times- be up-to-date, which includes any text files to be included. So what happens while you're working on a new release? Something like this - for **every change to be made for the next release**:
~~~~~~- apply a fix or create/add a new extension
~~~~~~- make a corresponding note in WikkaReleaseNotes here
~~~~~~- make a new copy of WikkaReleaseNotes to 'changes' text file
~~~~~~- commit all these files into the CVS---
~~~~~~- build (periodically) new beta release or (once) final release
~~~~~The set of files in the repository should be "complete" at all times to be able to do a build; which (in your proposal) means also //repeatedly// copying the WikkaReleaseNotes (manually, or via a script) - not just once, but for every change being made. It's an extra step, and doing that step is a manual process (even if you run a script to do the copying, running the script is a manual step). People do forget steps :), so the fewer manual steps there are, the more reliable the build and release process will be.''

~~~~~''On the other hand, a static WikkaReleaseNotes page with a link to the online WikkaReleaseNotes would need to be created and committed only once; no redundant and easy-to-forget manual steps needed any more. --JavaWoman''

~~Why don't we focus our energy on making the ""{{wikkachanges}}"" action better? JavaWoman, you are detailing problems with my crappy action that I spent ten minutes on to demonstrate the concept. Wouldn't it be possible to tweak the action to output the text to your satisfaction? (''What I see is is a far less readable version, and if it's in a text file, then how are you going to keep the two synchronized? We **already** have WikkaReleaseNotes - if you just include that it's simpler (it's already there), more reliable (nothing to synchronise, the data is in one place, not two), and more readable (no extra action needed either).'')

~~I'm proposing that we name the page WikkaReleaseNotes for a reason. Let's imagine that Linus decides he wants to create a Wikka site name LinuxWiki to document his Linux kernel. If we name a default page as WikkaReleaseNotes, won't this confuse people on the LinuxWiki site when they are looking for the release notes for Linux? What will Linus name the page that describes the release notes for his software? You might say, he could just overwrite the Wikka release notes with whatever he wants. But then what happens when he upgrades to a new Wikka version? Do you see the problem that we are creating? (''So rename it WikkaReleaseNotes **here** and include **that** page as a system page. I agree that the name is not optimal - but the same is true here already. **Note**: this rename has been done now --JW'')

~~I don't like the idea of us forcing pages on people. If we make the release notes as an action, people can have the release notes show on any page they want. They could create a page named WikiEngineChanges and place the ""{{wikkachanges}}"" action on it, and when they upgrade, the changes will show up on the page that **they** decided. (''So they create a page called WikiEngineChanges and just ""{{include}}"" the WikkaReleaseNotes on it.'') If we force a page named WikkaReleaseNotes, we are going to create an unnecessary struggle with site owners that might not want to have the Wikka release notes on a page named WikkaReleaseNotes. (''It's just another "system" page, like SandBox and FormattingRules. I don't see the problem.'') -- JsnX

~~''Comments embedded above to make them more relevant to context -- JavaWoman''

~~''I gave above some more reactions about my way of seeing the problem of release notes. I'd like to propose here some steps towards a solution that I hope we might all agree upon.
~~- we rename the ""ReleaseNotes"" page on this server as WikkaReleaseNotes; **Note**: done now --JW
~~- we add to the next release the ##""{{version}}""## action;
~~- we create a (temporary) ##""{{wikkachanges}}""## action that prints the following code:''
~~%%===== Wikka Release Notes =====
This server runs on [[[ Wikka Wiki]] version **{{version}}**.
The new features of the current version are described on the [[ main Wikka server]]%%
~~''In the future, this action will be replaced by a FetchRemote action.
~~(BTW it might be interesting to add named anchors in WikkaReleaseNotes to facilitate referring to specific Wikka versions)
~~- we add to the installer/upgrader a line for creating a local WikkaReleaseNotes. The page will contain, for the time being, only ##""{{wikkachanges}}""##. The installer leaves a note about the page creation/upgrade: "written by the Wikka Installer";
~~- we distribute with each release a text file, called ##docs/WikkaReleaseNotes.text## with a textual version of the section of WikkaRecentChanges page on the main wikka server concerning the last release.
~~ Is this an acceptable compromise? ;) -- DarTar''

~-We should create a default page called WikkaDocumentation containing the following code (in the future it will contain the actual documentation or a plugin to fetch remote documentation):
%%===== Wikka Documentation =====
A comprehensive and up-to-date documentation on Wikka Wiki can be found on the
[[ main Wikka server]]%%
~~''Agreed. --JavaWoman''

~~~''For the time being, what about creating a default page called WikkaReleaseNotes containing a static link to the online WikkaReleaseNotes? (see my note above on why creating or overwriting a page during upgrade is not really a problem)'' -- DarTar

~~~~''Actually, I'd like to see our current ""ReleaseNotes"" page here renamed to **WikkaReleaseNotes**; pages relating to Wikka itself really should start with 'Wikka': we already have WikkaDevelopment, WikkaBugs, WikkaBugsResolved, etc. (why not WikkaDocumentation?) - WikkaReleaseNotes would neatly fit into that pattern and be clearer than just """ReleaseNotes""". Then someone writing about, say, a Calendar can create a page like FancyCalendarWikkaReleaseNotes etc. ---I agree with DarTar that a page with a static link to the online release notes here, to be included with the install, would be a good temporary solution; to be replaced later by a mechanism like FetchRemote (once finished - but let's not wait for that!) (**Note**: edited somewhat for readablity - we now do have WikkaReleaseNotes and WikkaDocumentation as suggested.) --JavaWoman''

~-I propose we update the default HomePage to display the version number, a [[WikkaReleaseNotes what's new]] link pointing to the WikkaReleaseNotes and a link to WikkaDocumentation. Here's my source code proposal for the new default HomePage
%%=====Welcome to your Wikka site! =====
Thanks for installing [[Wikka:HomePage WikkaWiki]]! This site is running on version {{version}} (see WikkaReleaseNotes).
Double-click on this page or click on the "edit page" link at the bottom to get started.

Also don't forget to visit the [[Wikka:HomePage WikkaWiki website]]!

Useful pages: FormattingRules, WikkaDocumentation, OrphanedPages, WantedPages, TextSearch.%%

~-BTW a stupid action for printing in the body of a page the current Wikka version as declared in the config file might be useful;
~~~''This should do it: %%(php)<?php
echo $this->VERSION;
?>%% Save as ##actions/version.php## --JavaWoman (who for once doesn't document what she writes. ;o) )''
~~~~Here it comes: this is Wikka version {{version}}. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have such basic system plugins handled by the wikka formatter, instead of using an action. And maybe in the future ##""{{version}}""## will print a link (fetchable or not) to WikkaReleaseNotes? -- DarTar

~-If Nils is ready with the new version in a couple of days, replace the current FormattingRules with an more structured page.
~~''I'm in Rom till sunday so don't expect big changes before monday. Nils''
~-Do we still need two different actions //colour/color// ? I would drop the British one.
~~Dropped. ''Geez, in the whole wide world it's only the Americans who spell it without the "u" we keep the U.S. spelling? Ironic.''
~~~''spelling **is** [[ ironic]] - you can always add a colour action yourself containing nothing but an include of ##actions/color.php##, if you must. :) --JavaWoman''
~~~''Liberia???? Japan I get (beaten in war). OAS I get (sucking up to U.S. ;) ). LIBERIA??? Liberia I don't get. BTW, I didn't mean that spelling was ironic, I meant that the decision was, given efforts by various members on this wiki to "internationalize" the wiki. (Or, I could rename the file. Writing an action to include an action is a programmer's solution obviously. LOL ;-} ) -- Mike''
~-Shouldn't we announce in the WikkaReleaseNotes that the //raw// handler has been modified?

~-**bug**: the feedback action still contains bad code that prevents it from working on installs with no rewriterules: the ##<form>## tag
must be replaced with the appropriate call to ##""$this->FormOpen()""##:
~~~- Since the bug has been fixed, I move the code to the resolved bugs. I'll add this bug fix in the WikkaReleaseNotes. -- DarTar

[for the next minor release]
- please give us back the "no cache" option on edit pages :)
- Right now, no pages are being cached. So what you really want is for caching to be brought back, with the option to disable it on certain pages, right? It's quite a few changes, so it probably won't be in the upcoming minor release. -- JsnX
- for ease of development, I'd move the SQL instructions for creating the default tables and pages during setup to two external ##.sql## files, the first for table structure, the second for data;
- Good idea. I'll look into the implementation....
- please add ModRewrite in code as a default. --JamesMcl
- ''Please be more specific. Wikka already works with or without ModRewrite.'' -- JsnX
- Jason, as I understand it, we have to add a .htaccess file with the code shown in the ModRewrite page.
- Couldn't the wikka installation include this as default and individuals change the config if they didn't want to use the feature rather than the other way around. --JamesMcl
- ''The .htaccess file //is// created during the installation, are you experiencing any problem with rewrite rules?'' --DarTar
- Yes, DarTar it didn't work for me. I notice that the ModRewrite code has been changed recently though. I just thought that the working code could be placed in the installation. Another thought, do you have to change your config file to point to HomePage rather than wikka.php?wakka=HomePage in addition to changing the .htaccess file. If so, then its my fault that it isn't working and I apologise --JamesMcl
- ''As a general rule you don't need to change //anything//, just accept the default options set by the installer. I have several local distibutions of wikka installed on my machine, either with or without RR. Here's how the config files look like:''

**RR on**
"root_page" => "HomePage",
"base_url" => "http://wokka/",
"rewrite_mode" => "1",

**RR off**
"root_page" => "HomePage",
"base_url" => "http://test/wikka-",
"rewrite_mode" => "0",

Hope this helps -- DarTar

- I contacted my isp and they advised me to use
- %%/home/www/user/wikka/%%
- Didn't work though --JamesMcl

DarTar kind of gave you the key....
Forget about the wrong information that your ISP gave you and read ModRewrite. -- JsnX
- Jason, I know the information that DarTar gave was correct and I have read ModRewrite but when I tried his settings, I got an error message, hence the reason for contacting my isp's help desk. The error can't find the correct path to wikka.php. I have reset the config file to RR Off and everything works fine. DarTar and JsnX, please accept my apology for wasting your time. --JamesMcl
- James, please keep asking questions. I wasn't trying to scare you off. In this case, though, it appears that something is amiss with mod_rewrite on your webhost. -- JsnX

[for the next major release]
- Your thoughts about PagedComments?
- [[TestSkin user skins]] (with new [[WikkaSkinOptimization css template]]);
- [[HelpInfo documentation]] shipped with the installation (or maybe [[IncludeRemote not]]);

- the whole config thing is something which should be taken care of in my mind, but a look at WikkaBugs //array-merge// would be nice.
- Can you be more specific about what you mean by "the whole config thing"? I'll throw in the "$wakkaConfig = array();" line. Just not sure what else you mean.
- See my questions at HandlingWikkaConfig. NilsLindenberg
- by the way, what about a highlighter-format? .highlight isn't used :-)

==Save Pages to PDF Format==
Page output to an Adobe pdf file using FPDF.
E-mail this page facility

Yet another idea from me:
~Usergroups. So i can create a group of users, and just write that group into the ACLs...
- Take a look at GroupManagement (which doesn't seem to be finished)

=="In work" for Wikka-pages==
Add a page property, 'Status' [?] that can be used to facilitate code development within Wikka. Imagine a very basic CVS system. A user can change the status to "In use' while considering improvements to the code, and then change it to 'Available' when done. This may prevent this scenario:
- Multiple users see the same code and concurrently start working on changes.
- One user posts his changes.
- Another user posts his changes without realizing that the code had been updated.
- Another user has to go back through his code and incorporate the changes made by the first user.

~''**Dangerous!** Consider the following scenario: user has been hard at work all week, now it's Friday afternoon and there's some time to do an edit or three. User opens each page in a browser tab, marking all three as "in use" and starts to edit them. Clickety-click. Suddenly user realises he has to run to catch the train home. Run! On the train, user realises the three pages are still open in the browser and "in use". "No matter", thinks our user, "it's always quiet during the weekend and I'll get back to it first thing Monday morning. On Sunday afternoon, user plays soccer, as he always does, and breaks a leg, which he usually doesn't do. User is transported to hospital where he has to stay for four weeks. ... A bit exceptional maybe - but what **do** you do with "dangling in uses" and when (how) are they considered "dangling" in the first place? --JW''
~~Good point, but this modification would be only an informational resource to facilitate user communication. Techically, users could still update the page any time they wanted. It would just be a courtesy to hold back if you saw that a page was 'in use.' I didn't mention it above, but I planned to also add a field that would timestamp when the status was last changed. So in your scenario, we would see that the page had been marked as 'in use' for several days and feel free to ignore it. However, this does bring up the idea that it would be good to also have a 'note' box available for updating the page status -- used for comments such as, "should have the code updated within a few hours." Better now? -- JsnX
~I've got code/table changes done that indicate if anybody (other than oneself) opened the page to "edit" in the last 15 minutes. It's on an iteration that isn't "live" right now (it's part of an earlier installation of wikka that we just haven't brought the code forward from yet), but I can make it that way so you can test out the functionality if you want. Since much of our site will be geared towards small teams doing collaborative editing, it was designed so that editing conflicts would not occur. Let me know if you want me to get it installed at a test site. -- GmBowen
~''I agree, it's an important issue (some Wakka forks have already addressed the problem of concurrent editing) -- DarTar''
~''JsnX: If it's purely informational, that's better; I thought the intention was some kind of locking. So you'd have something like:
~~-state: in use | available
~~-timestamp: in use since
~~-note: applies to the in use state only
~Then - would the state apply to the logical page or to a particular version? If the latter, what happens if a page is reverted to that version? What happens to the state when another user goes ahead and edits the page anyway?
~And I still think you'd need some kind of admin function to "clear" dangling in use states that are older than xx minutes/hours/days.
~GmBowen: is yours completely automatic or user-initiated? What happens in the run off to catch the train scenario? -- JavaWoman''
~(i) it's purely informational, not a "lock" sets a red exclamation mark beside the page name at the top if the "edit" link (or double click) has been used in the last 15 minutes by anybody other than yourself (ii) it's automatic (iii) the "train scenario" can't happen. It doesn't check if "saved" or not, just whether an edit was started in the last 15 minutes. This means that if the person doing the edit hasn't saved in the last 15 minutes when editing then the exclamation mark isn't activated for another user. But, people should save edits every 15 minutes anyways methinks. It's not "foolproof", but was meant to avoid many sorts of common editing conflicts on collaborative documents. It's not a very "big" edit of the wikka code actually. The edit.php script timestamps the most recent version of the page when it is activated, and there's a small addition to header.php that checks when the page is loaded to see if the current time is < 15 minutes from that timestamp & if so shows an exclamation mark. Finally, there's a small linked graphic that "refreshes" the page beside "homepage" and the "edit" link (essentially, it's just a link to the page itself) so a user can check the edit status before deciding to edit it themselves. For server load reasons I decided to not have an automatic check (once every 5 minutes for example) since most people read & don't edit much of the time so it made sense more to encourage people to check edit status themselves. Of course, it would also be possible to have edit.php check to see if the file was edited in last 15 minutes and if so, ask the user if they wanted to continue with their own edit. Hmmm...I'll have to think about that. As it sits it worked pretty well when tested (but remember, I'm into small group collaborative writing tasks....I'm not sure how it would work if the pages were "open" to everyone). It originally took me several hours to write the code myself, but I'm sure it would take JW or DarTar or Jason maybe 30 minutes....and the code would probably be more efficient (I'm not a real coder remember :-( ) -- GmBowen (aka Mike) (I've now provided my code & mods @ [GmBowenRecentEditCheck] for people to play with)

==Searching (in) comments==
Add the ability to 'search for all comments by user X'. How this might be useful: I want to find a comment by JavaWoman ''//(really?)//'', but I can't remember which page it was on -- she's quite prolific! -- ''//(I admit I'm easily distracted. What am I doing here, now!? :))//'' so I use this new function to list all of her comments.
~''Yes. And related: an extension of this or the general search function to search by //comments content// (in addition to page name or page content) would, I think, be also useful. --JW''
~Agreed. -- JsnX
~''Nice idea :). For //comments by user X// (and, why not, //mods by user X//) we could imagine something similar to Google syntax for site-restricted queries. E.g.: ##I18n user:""JavaWoman""##. The scope of the query (pages, mods, comments, anywhere) should be settable as a radio button (similar to Google's restrict search options). FYI, //Comments by user X//, //Pages owned by user X// and //Changes done by user X// were already partially addressed by the following action proposals: UserCommentsAction, UserPagesAction, UserChangesAction -- DarTar''
~In general....given the complexity (and utility) of some of the conversations now happening in the comments, I think that we should consider either (i) the current textsearch being expanded to include the comments, or (ii) a separate action be written directed at searching the comments table (possibly an easier route). The latter might mean we consider renaming the search pages to ""SearchText"", ""SearchTextExtended"" & ""SearchComments"". [I now realize that this "search comments" feature is a **"lost"** feature. I realize now that //earlier// versions of this wiki had the comments stored in the pages table and were therefore searched. When they were moved to a separate table, the ability to search comments was lost. (Update: See my GmBowen directory for a (temporary) solution for this....even separates results for comments & pages into two columns) A separate action to list all comments by a user would also be useful. In a related comment on the comments, and given my arguments about the complexity of conversations in some of the comment threads now, I suggest that we also consider developing code for threaded discussions in the comments....which I think will considerably enrich collaborative efforts (such as we engage in). -- GmBowen

==Order of the text-search==
It would be good if the text-search would be sorted in some way. If I search for example for "GmBowen", a page with the exact match (his userpage) should be on the top of the results. The next results perhaps in alphabetical order? --NilsLindenberg

==Low priority:==
- Add fields to the 'users' table [?] to track when RecentChanges and RecentlyCommented were last viewed. Then RecentChanges and RecentlyCommented can by modified to highlight new items since the user last viewed the page.
~~''If it's only for **highlighting**, OK, but I'm not waiting for that. If it's for **filtering**, please no. I quite often trace back several days to re-review pages or comments --JW''
~~OK. Point taken. I was considering doing some form of filtering, but will now only consider higlighting, as requested. -- JsnX
~~''I totally agree with JW's point -- DarTar''
~~''Actually, I //could// imagine separate functionality with filtering being useful on a busy site, but then as, say, UnseenChanges and UnseenComments - **in addition to** the current "Recent" functionality; that way the semantics of "recent" would not be changed. But I agree it's low priority. --JavaWoman''


''This was added to Wikka in version''
- New usernames should be checked against existing page names. This was prompted by a new user named 'HomePage'.

~For **##wikka.php##**:%%(php)<?php
* Check by name if a page exists.
* @author {@link JavaWoman}
* @copyright Copyright © 2004, Marjolein Katsma
* @license GNU Lesser General Public License
* @version 1.0
* @access public
* @uses Wakka::Query()
* @param string $page page name to check
* @return boolean TRUE if page exists, FALSE otherwise
function ExistsPage($page)
$count = 0;
$query = "SELECT COUNT(tag)
FROM ".$this->config['table_prefix']."pages
WHERE tag='".mysql_real_escape_string($page)."'";
if ($r = $this->Query($query))
$count = mysql_result($r,0);
return ($count > 0) ? TRUE : FALSE;
~For **##actions/usersettings.php##** - insert after line 151:%%(php)<?php
if ($this->ExistsPage($name))
$error = 'Sorry, this ""WikiName"" is reserved for a page. Please choose a different name';
~ and change **##if##** on the next line to **##elseif##**. That should do it, I think. -- JavaWoman

===== Wikka Development =====
{{lastedit show="3"}}

>>**See also**
- WikkaBetaFeatures of this wiki
- [[Docs:WikkaReleaseNotes Older Releases]]
- [[SuggestionBox Suggestions]]
- [[CodeContributions Contributions from users]]

====The next release====
//the following things will be added/updated/fixed in the next release//

===Feature Additions===

===Bug fixes===


===For the next minor release===

==SQL instructions in seperate file==
For ease of development, I'd move the SQL instructions for creating the default tables and pages during setup to two external ##.sql## files, the first for table structure, the second for data (DarTar)
~&God idea. I'll look into the implementation.... (JsnX)

===For the next major release===

please give us back the "no cache" option on edit pages :)
~& Right now, no pages are being cached. So what you really want is for caching to be brought back, with the option to disable it on certain pages, right? It's quite a few changes, so it probably won't be in the upcoming minor release. -- JsnX

Your thoughts about PagedComments? (DarTar)

[[TestSkin user skins]] (with new [[WikkaSkinOptimization css template]]); (DarTar)

WikkaDocumentation shipped with the installation (or maybe [[IncludeRemote not]]); (DarTar)


===Need to be done===

~-**install.php** does not remove /actions/wakkabug.php
~-On the install page, there should be a trailing "/" at the end of the base URL. Without it, css and other stuff won't work. It happened on two separate shared hosts running red hat/cpanel setup. (RyanKnoll (2005-02-05 08:09:24) copied from WikkaInstallation --Nils)

~- (499) RE for InterWiki link not the same as in (formatter) wakka.php

~- (3) check for valid page name should be done only for new pages (done??)

~- (5?) header is missing xml-declaration: echo '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>';
~- (9?) html tag is missing xhtml-declaration: <html xmlns="">

~- **mychanges** does not really sort by last change (see SandBox)
~-**newpage**: badly written (no input validation (will break if no page name submitted); superfluous hidden field used to detect submitted state; invalid XHTML): rewrite if we need it at all (note: mentioned on WikkaBugsResolved with a code change but this change isn't present in! So it's not resolved, and unchanged from I think it's much better to remove it though.---
~~&''Well, I think I'd suggest adding it to the 3rd party plugin directory then. Although for you sorts that action doesn't seem necessary, for the community of kids that I work with, it's something that I anticipate will be the main way they make pages at first. By all means improve the action so that it cannot be blank (I raised this initially I think), and that so a regex checks for camelcasing, but I think it should be available somewhere & the 3rd party plugins directory would suit.'' -- GmBowen
~~&How hard is it for them to learn to use a Wiki in a Wiki-way? There are already two ways to create a page - referring to one and then creating it from the missing link being the best (and easiest) and it will not leave any orphans (which should be discouraged anyway!); this is not that hard (no URLs, no code, just using the Wiki). Surely highschool kids can learn //something// - don't underestimate them. ;-) --JW
~~&''Oh, I don't underestimate them, they can learn the "normal" way of making a page. But the create page action is a good scaffold towards that....and scaffolding is important. Also, I'm working on a separate environment for grade 6/7/8...for those age groups it'll be even more useful. And, in my experience with people playing with this wiki (my undergrads), many people start with making orphaned pages, and then organize them so they're unorphaned and can find them more easily. ''//(HOW do they make orphaned pages then? The newpage action actually encourages making orphaned pages, something that should be avoided. If they're not using a newpage action then obviously they don't need that to create orphans. :))//'' As for using the normal wiki-way to create pages, I'm a pretty competent computer nerd and I found (and find) the normal way of making wiki pages awkward. If I want to start a new page for some reason, having to open another page to write the name, save it, and then click on the link to go to the new page to edit it is "annoying" in that it takes so much work. ''//(But it's the only way to ensure the page will not be orphaned to begin with. Wikis are about interlinking pages easily, orphans don't have a place in that.)//'' Kids (and other users I would argue) will want to start a new page like they do in a word or two clicks only (and in my environment the URL bar is hidden, so they can't do it that way). ''//(Where "will want" suggests assumption rather than research - if they can learn to use a word processor they //certainly// can learn to use a Wiki. A Wiki **is not** a word processor - why should it work the same? It would create an incorrect mental model. Creating links is about the **easiest** part of using a Wiki - and the most essential!)//'' Wiki-think is that you make structure as you make content (that's essentially what you're describing). But many people don't work (or think) that way....disparate content first, then structure it....I know numerous academics that write that way in fact. (In fact, on this site I make a new page first, get it the way I want, and then go and add links.....I just use the URL bar to do it) The "make new page" action allows wikka to support both sorts of approaches, and that means more appealing to more people. ''//(But Wikka should not **encourage** creating orphans - which is what the newpage action does - and if you really must Wikka //already// supports it: you can use the address bar to make a new URL. That's sufficient.)//'' An old DOS program, Tornado notes, worked this way too. You added bunches of content that you could search on, but in use you then added keywords (like we do in wikka with categories) to provide organizational structure in searches. --GmBowen''
~- **image** does not have alt required (necessary for valid XHTML; no default should be provided); a specified blank value (zero or more spaces) should be accepted as given. Also remove the meaningless default title attribute value: use no title unless specified as an action code.---
~&''To present it a different way, My understanding of why the alt tag is needed is because it is picked up by screen readers (literally, readers) to assist visually impaired people with "reading" the page...I suspect that's one of the reasons that it's in the standards in the first place.'' -- GmBowen

Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki