Wiki source for WikkaDevelopmentFR

Show raw source

===== Développement de Wikka=====
{{lastedit show="3"}}

>>**Voir aussi**
- WikkaBetaFeatures de ce wiki
- [[Docs:WikkaReleaseNotes Anciennes versions]]
- [[SuggestionBox Suggestions]]
- [[CodeContributions Contributions des utilisateurs]]

====La prochaine version====
//Les points suivants seront ajoutés, mis à jour, corrigés dans la prochaine version//

===Autres Features===

===Correction de Bugs===


===Pour la prochaine version mineure===

==Instructions SQL dans un fichier séparé==
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??)

~- **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