ot;estimated reading
time" could be provided. Along with maybe a word count, character count,
etc.
Since I'm here, quick thanks to the MediaWiki community for creating
such wonderful wiki software!
Regards,
John Elliot V
--
E: j...@jj5.net
P: +61 4 35
if it was on
the agenda. Look forward to seeing it when it ships.
On 2012-07-28 08:36, Terry Chay wrote:
Are you a Brandon plant trying to get us to resource Athena again? :-)
On Jul 27, 2012, at 3:01 AM, John Elliot j...@jj5.net wrote:
Are there any initiatives in the MediaWiki community for a MediaWiki
theme
Are there any initiatives in the MediaWiki community for a MediaWiki
theme that supports 'responsive design' [1] -- where content is properly
laid out in an accessible form on all manner of devices including
desktops and smart phones?
[1] http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/
On 2012-07-27 23:52, Jon Robson wrote:
The Wikipedia mobile site is being made mobile first using responsive
design techniques. The plan is for it to eventually mature into a
responsive Athena skin that can also be used on desktop.
Any idea about when the responsive Athena skin might be ready?
On 12/08/2011 8:55 PM, David Gerard wrote:
THESIS: Our inadvertent monopoly is *bad*. We need to make it easy to
fork the projects, so as to preserve them.
I have an idea that might be practical and go some way toward solving
your problem.
Wikipedia is an impressive undertaking, and as you
On 12/08/2011 10:31 PM, David Gerard wrote:
This one's tricky, because that's not free content, for good reason.
It would need to be present for correct attribution at the least. I
don't see anything intrinsically hard about that - have I missed
anything about it that makes it hard?
Well
On 12/08/2011 10:44 PM, John Elliot wrote:
It wouldn't be the same type of blow by blow attribution that you get
where you can see a log of specifically what contributions particular
users had made
Although I guess it would be possible to go all out and support that
too. You could leave
Hi there.
I've made some modifications to MediaWiki 1.17.0 that others might be
interested in. I'd be flattered if some or all of them made it into the
official MediaWiki release.
Firstly, I've added links to the W3C HTML validation service hosted by
MIT. These show up as 'W3C HTML 5.0' icons
On 10/08/2011 6:43 AM, Platonides wrote:
Theoretically, the wiki should never generate invalid HTML, but it's not
perfect.
It was pretty close to perfect. I only had to comment out two features
to get conformance with the (experimental) HTML5 validator. I assumed
HTML5 output in my code,
On 10/08/2011 6:53 AM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
Please don't edit DefaultSettings.php; Your $wgFooterIcons change could
have been done in LocalSettings.php without causing trouble for yourself
when you upgrade.
Ah, didn't realise LocalSettings.php was the right place to do my edits.
I guess I
On 10/08/2011 6:50 AM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Platonidesplatoni...@gmail.com wrote:
ResourceLoaderDynamicStyles was purposefully added even though it is not
conforming.
AFAIKmeta tags with made-up name= attributes are perfectly legal,
at least in HTML5.
On 10/08/2011 6:53 AM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
I can't comprehend the obsession with killing de-facto standardized
patterns just to shove a button on a site to a picky validator that only
takes into account a single relevant standard.
One reason would be to help avoid embarrassments like this:
On 10/08/2011 8:47 AM, Chad wrote:
I guess that's only embarrassing if those sorts of things bother you.
I think it would be fair to have it both ways. There are a class of
people who are bothered by things of that sort. I'm sure I'm not alone,
at least on this issue. :P
I'm with Dan on this
On 10/08/2011 8:55 AM, Chad wrote:
Most of our users won't know or care whether their pages validate.
Those that do presumably know how to use a validator already.
Isn't an unstated goal of MediaWiki/Wikipedia to decrease ignorance?
If you already know how to use a validator you might still be
On 10/08/2011 9:08 AM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
On 11-08-09 03:37 PM, John Elliot wrote:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://en.wikipedia.org
Embarrassing? You do realize that the validator is complaining that it
sees `ul/ul`, right?
I hadn't realised that.
I can't even find the spot
On 10/08/2011 9:13 AM, Platonides wrote:
John Elliot wrote:
Ah, but I don't know how to use the hook (yet), do I? :P I'll figure it
out and fix up my code.
See docs/hooks.txt from your mediawiki folder.
Will do. Thanks!
___
Wikitech-l
On 10/08/2011 9:49 AM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
WikiText is loose so instead of errors, if the
parser doesn't like something you inputted it's not going to pass that
through raw and let a html validator say it's wrong, it's going to
decide it doesn't like it and treat it as plaintext.
Well, the
On 10/08/2011 10:16 AM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
On 11-08-09 04:14 PM, John Elliot wrote:
On 10/08/2011 9:08 AM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
I can't even find the spot in the HTML4 or XHTML1 spec where it says
that a perfectly fine marked up list is invalid if it doesn't contain
any items.
Well you
On 10/08/2011 11:19 AM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
Would you like to argue for a $wgStricterParsing bool that will
sacrifice parser output consistency for things like folding == headers
into parent th's (perhaps turn into a span if they explicitly use ah#
instead of ==), and other things we haven't
On 10/08/2011 12:19 PM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
Oh right, one the 'other' things I had one mind but couldn't remember
while writing was converting things like valign, width/height, etc...
into css styles.
That'd be nice.
Though given the fact that block content in a th in XHTML was valid and
20 matches
Mail list logo
