Mailing-List: contact bloodhound-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of matevzb@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.41 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Subject: Re: Need advice: stripping of wiki syntax from Bloodhound Search
 results
From: =?utf-8?Q?Matev=C5=BE_Brada=C4=8D?= <matevzb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <511CF5D7.7050009@wandisco.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:54:35 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9F76E786-1D61-4471-B894-60A1E2EF5D4B@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAHM0gni_--+jQBsE5AZNccDQW8uVvRP5b-KMRjtrLTSbt37dcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <511CF5D7.7050009@wandisco.com>
To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org

Since the formatters return a Markup, perhaps a quick workaround would =
be to use
something like Markup's stripentities() and striptags() to get the "raw" =
text back?

--
matevz

On 14. Feb, 2013, at 15:33, Gary Martin wrote:

> On 14/02/13 12:18, Andrej Golcov wrote:
>> HI,
>>=20
>> Branko suggested to strip wiki syntax from Bloodhound Search results
>> that is IMHO quite reasonable suggestion. That featue will give us
>> better search scoring and better highlighting.
>>=20
>> I have one question regarding implementation of this feature.
>> I far as I can see, existing formatters (e.g. trac.wiki.formatter.*
>> classes) provide wiki to html formatting but not wiki to stripped
>> text. Do I missed something?
>>=20
>> One of the possibility, that I see, is to convert wiki to html and
>> than convert html to text. That does not look like the most optimal
>> solution.
>>=20
>> Any alternatives, ideas?
>>=20
>> Regards, Andrej
>=20
> I should find out more about how the formatters work! My first thought =
would be to look at creating a new formatter that strips out syntax but =
I am not sure how big a job that will be.
>=20
> I don't mind seeing a sub-optimal solution, particularly if it is =
likely to be quick enough and quick to create. I think that the double =
conversion would be giving us the correct results - the rendered html =
must be considered what the user will want to be able to search, right?
>=20
> Cheers,
>    Gary