diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/todo/pagespec_relative_to_a_target.mdwn | 6 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/todo/tag_pagespec_function.mdwn | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies.mdwn | 3 |
3 files changed, 10 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/doc/todo/pagespec_relative_to_a_target.mdwn b/doc/todo/pagespec_relative_to_a_target.mdwn index 4757988e0..00030cce6 100644 --- a/doc/todo/pagespec_relative_to_a_target.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/pagespec_relative_to_a_target.mdwn @@ -90,8 +90,12 @@ diff -urNX ignorepats ikiwiki/IkiWiki/Plugin/relative.pm ikidev/IkiWiki/Plugin/r [[!tag patch]] -> This looks really interesting. It reminds me of XPath and its conditionals. +> This looks really interesting. It reminds me of [[!wikipedia XPath]] and its conditionals. > Those might actually work well adapted to pagespecs. For instance, to write > "match any page with a child blah", you could just write *[blah] , or if you > don't want to use relative-by-default in the conditionals, *[./blah]. > -- [[JoshTriplett]] + +> And it [[!taglink also_reminds_me|pagespec_in_DL_style]] of [[!wikipedia description logics]]: of course, given the relation `subpage` one could write a description-logic-style formula which would define the class of pages that are ("existentially") in a given relation (`subpage` or `inverse(subpage)*subpage`) to a certain other class of pages (e.g., named "blah") ("existentially" means there must exist a page, e.g., named "blah", which is in the given relation to the candidate). + +> Probably the model behind XPath is similar (although I don't know enough to say this definitely).--Ivan Z. diff --git a/doc/todo/tag_pagespec_function.mdwn b/doc/todo/tag_pagespec_function.mdwn index 0f2d306af..3604a83d9 100644 --- a/doc/todo/tag_pagespec_function.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/tag_pagespec_function.mdwn @@ -16,7 +16,9 @@ match tagged pages independent of whatever the tagbase is set to. >> (My [[!taglink wishlist]].) Yes, this is confusing and not nice. I observed this misbehavior, because I wanted to match two different lists of pages (only tagged or linked in any way), but it didn't work. Would this feature require a complex patch? --Ivan Z. >>> If you link to a page 'foo' which happens to be a tag then the page you link from will turn up in the set of pages returned by tagged(foo). The only way to avoid this would be for the tag plugin to not use wikilinks as an implementation method. That itself would not be too hard to do, but there might be people relying on the older behaviour. A better alternative might be to have a "tag2" plugin (or a better name) which implements tagging entirely separately. -- [[Jon]] ->>>> I see; at least, your response is encouraging (that it's not hard). I could even find some work that can give similar features: [[structured page data#another_kind_of_links]] -- they envisage a pagespec like `data_link(Depends on,bugs/bugA)`, thus a "separation of dependencies between bugs from arbitrary links". Indeed, having many relations that can be used in the formulas defining classes of objects (like pagespecs here) is a common thing, so this would be a nice feature. (I'll be trying out the patches there first, probably.) In general, extending the language of pagespecs to something more powerful (like [[!wikipedia description logics]]) seems to be a nice possible feature. I saw a discussion of similar ideas about the extension of the pagespec language somewhere here. --Ivan Z. +>>>> I see; at least, your response is encouraging (that it's not hard). I could even find some work that can give similar features: [[structured page data#another_kind_of_links]] -- they envisage a pagespec like `data_link(Depends on,bugs/bugA)`, thus a "separation of dependencies between bugs from arbitrary links". + +>>>> Indeed, having many relations that can be used in the formulas defining classes of objects (like pagespecs here) is a commonly imagined thing, so this would be a nice feature. (I'll be trying out the patches there first, probably.) In general, extending the language of pagespecs to something more powerful (like [[!wikipedia description logics]]) seems to be a nice possible feature. I saw more discussions of ideas [[!taglink about_the_extension_of_the_pagespec_language_in_the_direction_similar_to_description_logics|pagespec_in_DL_style]] somewhere else here. --Ivan Z. > One other thing, perhaps it should be called `tagged()`? --[[Joey]] diff --git a/doc/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies.mdwn b/doc/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies.mdwn index 974bf8dbb..8b36f1e59 100644 --- a/doc/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies.mdwn @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ I like the idea of [[tips/integrated_issue_tracking_with_ikiwiki]], and I do so >> I thought about this briefly, and got about that far.. glad you got >> further. :-) --[[Joey]] ->> Or, one could also refer to the language of [[!wikipedia description logics]]: their formulas actually define classes of objects through quantified relations to other classes. --Ivan Z. +>> Or, one [[!taglink could_also_refer|pagespec_in_DL_style]] to the language of [[!wikipedia description logics]]: their formulas actually define classes of objects through quantified relations to other classes. --Ivan Z. > > Another option would be go with a more functional syntax. The concept here would > be to allow a pagespec to appear in a 'pagespec function' anywhere a page can. e.g. @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ I like the idea of [[tips/integrated_issue_tracking_with_ikiwiki]], and I do so >> So, equivilant example: `define(bugs, bugs/* and !*/Discussion) and define(openbugs, bugs and !link(done)) and openbugs and !link(openbugs)` >> + >> Re recursion, it is avoided.. but building a pagespec that is O(N^X) where N is the >> number of pages in the wiki is not avoided. Probably need to add DOS prevention. >> --[[Joey]] |