pages'' The links don't give you the access (although that's an interesting concept) The links only

pages'' The links don't give you the access (although that's an interesting concept) The links only

=$doc.getUrl()?refreshed=1" />{{/html}}#end{{/velocity cjdelisle - (00:05): there's a proof of concept for meta

it's "xwiki-core specific", no it's ok since we already have multiwiki concept in wiki macro

xwiki concept. But yes, it's already there so it's fine vmassol - (16:37): sdumitriu: still the

it's "xwiki-core specific", no it's ok since we already have multiwiki concept in wiki macro

xwiki concept. But yes, it's already there so it's fine vmassol - (16:37): sdumitriu: still the

> yeah. it's a very nice concept 11:02 <jstoldt> just like tide turbines 11:03 <@cjdelisle> Also you have

load calculations tell just how much. 11:05 <jstoldt> well, for me personally the best concept for

> yeah. it's a very nice concept 11:02 <jstoldt> just like tide turbines 11:03 <@cjdelisle> Also you have

load calculations tell just how much. 11:05 <jstoldt> well, for me personally the best concept for

commons sense, when a project contains too much concept you separate it is several like we do all the time

commons sense, when a project contains too much concept you separate it is several like we do all the time

<+tmortagne> we could find a way to make include macro a bit less dependent on wiki concept, like some API to

that concept... in fact, i am still trying to figure out a good translation for mill that makes sense

`> *concept 14:49 <cjdelisle> inside of that you have a space called Another. 14:49 <cjdelisle> Inside of that

that concept... in fact, i am still trying to figure out a good translation for mill that makes sense

<+sburjan`> *concept 14:49 <cjdelisle> inside of that you have a space called Another. 14:49 <cjdelisle

component concept 14:29 <+lucaa> yes, I had written this wrapper already, for this very purpose, to provide

component concept 14:29 <+lucaa> yes, I had written this wrapper already, for this very purpose, to provide

<jstoldt> proof of concept? 10:16 <@cjdelisle> Because mine doesn't rely on asking verisign who owns a

<jstoldt> proof of concept? 10:16 <@cjdelisle> Because mine doesn't rely on asking verisign who owns a

() gets the "selected object" from the document (which is a bad concept IMO) 19:05 <@cjdelisle> getObject

() gets the "selected object" from the document (which is a bad concept IMO) 19:05 <@cjdelisle> getObject