masti (2010-12-31 01:33):
On 12/31/2010 01:19 AM, Platonides wrote:
masti wrote:
That is true - We can't do away with Wikitext always been the
intermediate conclusion (in between My god, we need to do something
about this problem and This is hopeless, we give up again).
between wikitext and
That is true - We can't do away with Wikitext always been the
intermediate conclusion (in between My god, we need to do something
about this problem and This is hopeless, we give up again).
between wikitext and WYSISWYG is a simple solution of colourizing text
like for hundreds of programing
masti wrote:
That is true - We can't do away with Wikitext always been the
intermediate conclusion (in between My god, we need to do something
about this problem and This is hopeless, we give up again).
between wikitext and WYSISWYG is a simple solution of colourizing text
like for
masti wrote:
That is true - We can't do away with Wikitext always been the
intermediate conclusion (in between My god, we need to do something
about this problem and This is hopeless, we give up again).
between wikitext and WYSISWYG is a simple solution of colourizing text
like for
* David Gerard dger...@gmail.com [Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:43:14 +]:
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a
barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup
Can we use a Javascript based parser to convert the wiki markup language to
some intermediate object, which can be easily converted to both languages
(wiki markup language and HTML)? I think JQuery object is a good idea. We
can extend JQuery to include such language conversion methods.
On 29 December 2010 16:20, Philip Tzou philip@gmail.com wrote:
Can we use a Javascript based parser to convert the wiki markup language to
some intermediate object, which can be easily converted to both languages
(wiki markup language and HTML)? I think JQuery object is a good idea. We
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let me riff on what you're saying here (partly just to confirm that I
understand fully what you're saying). It'd be very cool to have the
ability to declare a single article, or probably more helpfully, a
single
On 28 December 2010 16:06, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
templates. You have to understand that templates are not single
element of Wikipedia syntax, they
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
e.g. Wikia has WYSIWYG editing and templates. They have a sort of
solution to template editing in WYSIWYG. It's not great, but people
sort of cope. How did they get there? What can be done to make it
better,
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can
be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that
Hi Brion,
Thanks for laying out the problem so clearly! I agree wholeheartedly
that we need to avoid thinking about this problem too narrowly as a
user interface issue on top of existing markup+templates. More
inline:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com wrote:
This
(Lying on the ground in the foetal position sobbing gently ... poor poor
Wiksource,
forgotten again.)
Wikisource - we have tried to get the source and structure by regulating the
spaces that
we can, however, formalising template fields to forms would be great ...
* extension for
14 matches
Mail list logo
