On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Gergo Tisza <gti...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Rob Lanphier <ro...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Gergo Tisza <gti...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> > Specifying wikitext-html conversion sounds like a MediaWiki 2.0 type of >> > project (ie. wouldn't expect it to happen in this decade), and even then >> it >> > would not fully solve the problem[...] >> >> You seem to be suggesting that >> 1. Specifying wikitext-html conversion is really hard >> 2. It's not a silver bullet (i.e. it doesn't "fully solve the problem") >> 3. HTML storage looks more like a silver bullet, and is cheaper >> 4. Therefore, a specification is not really worth doing, or if it is, >> it's really low priority >> >> Is that an accurate way of paraphrasing your email? > > Yes. The main problem with specifying wikitext-to-html is that extensions > get to extend it in arbitrary ways; e.g. the specification for Scribunto > would have to include the whole Lua compiler semantics.
Do you believe that declaring "the implementation is the spec" is a sustainable way of encouraging contribution to our projects? Rob _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
