On Saturday, May 14, 2016, Strainu wrote:
> 2016-05-14 4:07 GMT+03:00 Legoktm :
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 05/02/2016 11:42 AM, Brian Wolff wrote:
>>> See gerrit patch https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/286495 I would
>>> appreciate everyone's feedback.
>>
>> Given the lack of objections here and on Gerrit, I we
Le 14/05/2016 à 03:07, Legoktm a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On 05/02/2016 11:42 AM, Brian Wolff wrote:
>> See gerrit patch https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/286495 I would
>> appreciate everyone's feedback.
>
> Given the lack of objections here and on Gerrit, I went ahead and merged
> it today.
Hello,
That
2016-05-14 4:07 GMT+03:00 Legoktm :
> Hi,
>
> On 05/02/2016 11:42 AM, Brian Wolff wrote:
>> See gerrit patch https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/286495 I would
>> appreciate everyone's feedback.
>
> Given the lack of objections here and on Gerrit, I went ahead and merged
> it today.
Can you please clar
Hi,
On 05/02/2016 11:42 AM, Brian Wolff wrote:
> See gerrit patch https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/286495 I would
> appreciate everyone's feedback.
Given the lack of objections here and on Gerrit, I went ahead and merged
it today.
-- Legoktm
___
Wikitec
On Monday, May 2, 2016, Max Semenik wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Brian Wolff wrote:
>
>>
> At this point, I would say that everybody who screen-scrapes saw it coming
> and breaking them is a good thing as sometimes, lessons just have to be
> learned.
>
Personally, I dont think we sh
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:43 AM, Max Semenik wrote:
> At this point, I would say that everybody who screen-scrapes saw it coming
> and breaking them is a good thing as sometimes, lessons just have to be
> learned.
>
There aren't many options other than content-scraping if you want to
transform Wi
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Gergo Tisza wrote:
>
> There aren't many options other than content-scraping if you want to
> transform Wikipedia articles into some semblance of structured data. We
> even do it ourselves, for media metadata (and use an XML parser for it
>
Actually the XML parser
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Brian Wolff wrote:
>
> There are references to it breaking people's screen scraping bots last time
> it was turned on. That was like 5 years ago though.
>
At this point, I would say that everybody who screen-scrapes saw it coming
and breaking them is a good thing
>
> The only benefit of $wgWellFormedXml was that you could toss your
> "well-formed" tag soup into an XML parser that didn't grok HTML. I have no
> idea if that worked reliably or was actually useful to anyone, but it's
> probably worth confirming that before actually removing the funky
> self-clo
I'd say an HTML5 output mode *ought* to work like this:
*Don't try to be clever.*
* Consistency and predictability are key to both security review and data
consumability.
*Quote attributes consistently and predictably.*
* Always use double-quotes on attributes in output.
*Output specced empty ta
So currently, we have two ways of outputting html - $wgWellFormedXml =
true (The default), outputs html that happens to conform with the
rules of XML. $wgWellFormedXml = false on the other hand, uses more
lax html5 rules to save a few bytes.
Having two modes of output, feels rather silly to me. Or
11 matches
Mail list logo
