: These are realy URL fragments... none of the other examples show the
: indent=on or the rest of the URL either, and when we get down to
indent=on doesn't really affect the structure of the response docs
(especially since people following the tutorial are likely to be using a
browser that pretty prints the XML) ... if you set indent aside, all
of the demo links in the previous versions of the tutorial were either...
1) full URLs (starting with http://...)
2) SolrQuerySyntax (w/o any url escaping or metacharacters) when the
text arround them made it clear they were query sytnax examples not
URL fragments
3) full /select URL query parts (ie: everything after the "?")
...the new sections you've added (highlighting & faceting) *look* like
they are type#3, expcet that they leave out params that change the
functionality. If the link text left out *all* params except the
ones being showcased and contained elipses or soemthing to indicate that
they were partial...
THIS: "...&hl=true&hl.fl=name,features"
INSTEAD OF: "q=video card&fl=name,id&hl=true&hl.fl=name,features"
...then it would probably be less confusing when other params besides the
ones in the link text were acctually used in the link href (and would draw
attention to the fact that we are building off of other params already
seen)
: faceting, the "fl" is also hidden. Showing all of the parameters
i missed that you added that fl there as well (the json formating made it
less obvious when looking at the result page) but it's just another
example of my point.
Ultimately my concern is just that we try to be consistent with our
exmaple URLs,
and your point about indent illustrates that we weren't really that good
about it before, but let's try to be at least as good as 1.3 or better.
So the question is: should the links in the tutorial focus on being
completely transparent (ie: show everything) or should they focus just on
illustrating the new params we're introducing in that section? and if
the later, what's the best way to make it clear that's what we're doing?
: As you point out, the wt=json parameter was explicitly presented
: earlier, so it seems fair game for not calling it out explicitly.
But it's presented more as an asside that in that one link we're using
JSON ... for the entire "Sorting" section that follows we don't use it
again, so it's kind of confusing when the results start popuing up in json
form in the highlighting section. (if we had some verbage when we
introduce "wt=json" about the remainder of the links using that format for
readability, and then we add it to all of the href's in the Sorting
section itwould be a lot less suprising.
: JSON prevents highlighter markup from being escaped... didn't want
: anyone seeing <em>
: The other benefit is vertical size - the XML format often consumed
Like i said: i'm totally fine with using the JSON format in the tutorial,
i just want to make it more transparent.
-Hoss
