Even if it's a detail let me elaborate a bit :) For me visibility implies that the "object" _is here_ but it is not visible (my opinion might be biased because of the visibility CSS property). On the other side this definition sounds good to me: "In computer programming, a scope is the context within a computer program in which a variable name or other identifier is valid and can be used, or within which a declaration has effect." [1] The general definition fits too: "extent or range of view, outlook, application, operation, effectiveness, etc.".
About the consistency issue, as I said I'm committed to make wiki macros extend WikiComponents in the near future. [1] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_(programming) [2] : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scope On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Thomas Mortagne >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi devs, >>>> >>>> Following the discussion about general architecture of the new >>>> localization module here is a more detailed proposal for the >>>> dynamically registered wiki translations pages. >>>> >>>> Here is how I propose to indicate that a document contains key=value >>>> pair translations: >>>> * put an object of class "XWiki.TranslationDocumentClass" >>> >>> I would have preferred TranslationClass but I see your point. >>> >>>> * set the "visibility" field to "Global", "Current wiki", "Current user" >>> >>> WDYT about scope ? I'm implementing >>> http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-8234 and I went for scope there >>> because I think it's more than just "visibility". >> >> OK for scope, I proposed "visibility" it to follow wiki macros but I >> don't like it much either. > > I prefer "visibility" because it's easier to understand IMO. "scope" is like > saying "stuff". > > But it's a detail… Again all I'd like is consistency which is now broken... > > Thanks > -Vincent > >>>> As for the content of the document it will stay the same as in >>>> preferences based documents for now. >>>> >>>> I have other fields in mind for later (on demand, translation message >>>> syntax, etc.) but this is a 4.3 proposal here. >>>> >>>> WDYT ? >>>> >>>> Here is my +1. >>>> -- >>>> Thomas Mortagne > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs -- Jean-Vincent Drean, XWiki. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
