phpwiki-talk

[Phpwiki-talk] ImageAlignment

[John K. <jo...@ke...>]

Hi,

I've been wondering for a while whether it was possible to add image 
align=left|right, so I had a dig around in the source on Friday and 
added some tweaks so I can now put:

[http://www.whatever.com/image.jpg left] and it'll insert an 
'align=left' attribute into the img tag.

I put the code here: 
http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/ImageAlignment - is that okay?

I was wondering whether this could be integrated into the main code, 
or am I barking up a wrong tree? Are there already plans to 
incorporate this kind of thing (plus alt tags?).

I have *no* idea about how development works, other than I see a 
bunch of guys working together to produce something really cool, and 
I have a server that runs php which I'm trying to learn.

Let me know what you think,

John.
-- 

---------------------------------------------------------
email:  jo...@ke...         phone:      07944 755613
web:     www.kershaw.org    AOL: johnkershaw
---------------------------------------------------------

Re: [Phpwiki-talk] ImageAlignment

[Adam S. <ad...@pe...>]

On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 01:05, John Kershaw wrote:
> I've been wondering for a while whether it was possible to add image 
> align=left|right, so I had a dig around in the source on Friday and 
> added some tweaks so I can now put:

Cool!
 
> [http://www.whatever.com/image.jpg left] and it'll insert an 
> 'align=left' attribute into the img tag.

Another syntax I've seen (i think on PikiePikie) was using the <>^_
symbols to show alignment.  They use this for formating content within
table cells.  So maybe something like:

[http://.../image.jpg <]

> I was wondering whether this could be integrated into the main code, 
> or am I barking up a wrong tree? Are there already plans to 
> incorporate this kind of thing (plus alt tags?).

I suspect that a lot of this stuff will fall into place once we figure
out a way to do named anchors nicely.

Adam.

[Phpwiki-talk] PhpWiki on RedHat

[Charles S. <ch...@st...>]

I've been running PhpWiki 1.3.2 with the mysql back-end on several RedHat
7.2 servers without much trouble, until I recently upgraded to the latest
php code via up2date (php-4.0.6-12).

No matter what I tried, I couldn't get PhpWiki to talk to mysql.  I tried
various modifications to the index.php file, as well as upgrading to both
1.3.3 and the latest CVS code (March 18, 2002).

It turns out there are some problems with the latest RedHat compile of the
mysql back-end for php.

First, if you're running 1.3.2, or earlier versions that relied on the PEAR
DB code from the host system, you'll get a message like the following when
upgrading:

/usr/local/lib/phpwiki-1.3.2/lib/FileFinder.php:82: Fatal[256]: DB.php: file
not found

This is because RedHat moved the pear libraries, so they are not found by
default.  To fix this, you need to add the new location of the pear files
(/usr/share/pear) to the include path:

ini_set('include_path', '/usr/share/pear/');

At this point, you'll get another error, this time something like:

/usr/local/lib/phpwiki-1.3.2/lib/WikiDB/backend/PearDB.php:27: Fatal[256]:
Can't connect to database: wikidb_backend_mysql: fatal database error

or the infamous:
Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock'

This is because the rocket scientists at RedHat compiled the mysql back-end
without mysqld running, so mysql.sock couldn't be found, resulting in the
compiled-in default pointing to /tmp/mysql.sock which doesn't exist.

The fix for this is pretty simple, however, just edit /etc/php.ini, find the
line that sets mysql.default_socket, and change it to the following:

mysql.default_socket = /var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock

Restart httpd so the change will take effect, and your phpwiki should be
back online...

Hopefully, this will save someone else the hassle I went through figuring
this out...

Charles Steinkuehler
ch...@st...

Re: [Phpwiki-talk] ImageAlignment

[Adam S. <ad...@pe...>]

CC'd back to the list cause it looked like a mistake that it wasn't ...

> I considered using these (and l|r) but went for left|right for ease 
> of understanding (and remembering) on the part of the user. Also < 
> and > are parsed for and return an error earlier in stdlib.php (I 
> think).

Yeah, it's hard to decide which is the most "wiki way".
 
> Which brings up a question. This new syntax you guys are working on - 
> will it play nicely alongside the current syntax? Converting to/from 
> during import/export/upgrades may or may not be difficult, but surely 
> this obstacle is dwarfed by the retraining of the existing user-base, 
> many of whom enjoy (!) using wiki *because* they are familiar with 
> the simple syntax? It's hard enough getting folks to edit wiki, but 
> once they do, asking them to learn a new system is, in some cases, 
> not practical.

This I can't answer as I'm not the one working on it.  If I remember
right the decision was that the old markup was sub-optimal and that the
new markup should be implemented exclusively.

> Oh yes - that was another question that's been lurking in the back of 
> my mind. Some of my history pages are getting pretty long and anchors 
> would be very useful.

Yep.  Moin has a TableOfContents macro that does some of what I'd like
to see, but it has some pretty serious limitations as well.
 
> On BurleyGreen.com most of the navigation on the left is an 
> IncludePage. This got me thinking: would be possible to create a 
> system which would allow content from a single page to be placed in 
> two or more locations in the template?
> 
> Say in the browse.html file you had the following:
> 
> <div class="nav"><?plugin Includepage section="Nav" ?></div>
> <div class="main">$content</div>
> <div class="sidebar"><?plugin Includepage section="SideBar" ?></div>
> 
> And in the wiki-text you could put something like:
> ===========
> Welcome to my phpwiki-powered web site...
> 
> ! Nav
> HomePage%%%
> SomePage%%%
> OtherPage
> 
> ! SideBar
> [http://.../image.jpg]%%%
> Caption
> ===========
> 
> You can *nearly* do this with the existing IncludePage plugin, but 
> the sidebar stuff will be duplicated at the bottom of the page. Can 
> anyone point out a way to suppress this content - with or without 
> hacking the source?

Why not just use multiple pages eg. SideBar, NavBar, TopBar etc?  That
seems more flexible to me anyway?

As for your question I believe there is an option to pass to the
IncludePage plugin to only include "sections" which are defined by
"----" within the page.

Adam.