* Steve Bennett [Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:13:51 +1000]:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Dmitriy Sintsov
> wrote:
> > What's complex in '''bold''' and ==headings== ? Here when we've
>
> It *looks* complex. That's pretty much most of the problem. Here's our
> desired use case:
>
You haven't convinced
"David Gerard" wrote in message
news:fbad4e140909241512h5c56dd09xe6d3d7de0603f...@mail.gmail.com...
> 2009/9/24 Platonides :
>> Brian wrote:
>
>>> * wikitext parsing would be much faster if the language was well defined
>>> and
>>> we could use flex/bison/etc...
>
>> Have you read the archives?
> -Original Message-
> From: wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> Dmitriy Sintsov
> Sent: 25 September 2009 07:01
> To: Wikimedia developers
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Proposal for editing template calls
> within page
2009/9/25 Dmitriy Sintsov :
> You haven't convinced me. I am not the most bright person in the world
> (my coding skills aren't top - I am more of humanitarian brain person
> actually) but it was really easy to me to understand basics of wikitext.
> Just in few minutes. Also, such repeated single
2009/9/25 vanessa lee :
> What form are articles stored in database?
Raw wiki text, plus many tables containing metadata. See
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Database_layout
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikite
* Jared Williams [Fri, 25 Sep 2009
10:49:54 +0100]:
>
> The problem is the ambiguity with italics, (''italics''). So the
> current parser doesn't really make its final decision on what should
> be bold or what should be italic until it hits a newline. If there are
> an even number of both bold an
2009/9/25 Dmitriy Sintsov :
> Let's assume an odd occurence of ''' will be converted to and
> an even occurence ''' to (begin/end of the node)? Non-paired
> occurence will simply cause XML parsing error - there should not be
> uneven number of '' or '''.
>
The point is that wikitext doesn't *have
OK, I see. And the other questions?
If I edit a page,Whether the page_id change or not?
-Original Message-
From: Petr Kadlec
To: Wikimedia developers
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:30:34 +0200
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Data Processing
2009/9/25 vanessa lee :
> What form are articles s
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:28 PM, 李琴 wrote:
> OK, I see. And the other questions?
>
> If I edit a page,Whether the page_id change or not?
>
page_latest will point to the relevant rev_id. The text will most
likely be saved in the text table. Article::doEdit and Revision are
the most likely places
Does anybody actually use Special:UploadMogile? Should we try to fix
it to work with the new upload code or just get rid of it?
Bryan
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> -Original Message-
> From: wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> Dmitriy Sintsov
> Sent: 25 September 2009 11:09
> To: Wikimedia developers
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Proposal for editing template calls
> within page
2009/9/25 Roan Kattouw :
> The point is that wikitext doesn't *have* parsing errors. The parser
> is very tolerant in that it tries to resolve 'invalid' and ambiguous
> constructs by some combination of guessing what was probably intended
> and trying not to mess up the rest of the article (the ne
2009/9/25 李琴 :
> OK, I see. And the other questions?
>
> If I edit a page,Whether the page_id change or not?
>
No, the page_id stays the same when pages are edited, and even when
they're moved (in the latter case, page_namespace and/or page_title
will change, of course).
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
_
If i just edit a page's section.Then ,What will be saved in the text
table, the entire page's text or just the edited section's text ?
Why the text table's fiels are old_id, old_text,old_flags? What does
the old mean?
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Ton
* David Gerard [Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:59:04 +0100]:
> 2009/9/25 Roan Kattouw :
>
> In past discussions I have noted that "tag soup" is a *feature* of
> human languages, not a bug.
>
> HTML was constructed as a computer markup language for humans.
> Unfortunately, the humans in question were nuclear
2009/9/25 Dmitriy Sintsov :
> XML is used to store "human-produced" rich formatted text by many
> standalone and web apps. XML parsers are also very strict and spitting
> errors. As it's been mentioned recently, XML is really good for bots,
> too, for that reason (the input is "error-free" tree).
2009/9/25 李琴 :
> If i just edit a page's section.Then ,What will be saved in the text
> table, the entire page's text or just the edited section's text ?
The entire page text, which is the result of merging the previous page
text with the changes you’ve made to the section.
> Why th
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> I'm using Chrome 3.0.195.21, and have long found that some characters
> in Wikipedia render as boxes. One example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_with_stroke renders as "
> (minuscule: )..."
As the article says, the characters were only ad
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jacopo Corbetta
wrote:
> (HTML-style headings do not show up in the TOC, an odd
> wikitext feature which we surely don't want newbies to use).
HTML-style headings do show up in the TOC, and have for a few years as
far as I know.
__
Hoi,
The notion that our editors should decide if a font is well enough
supported is a bit off. It is saying "you cannot properly write your
language because ...".
I do appreciate that TECHNICALLY you are right. However what is needed is
people adding the "new" glyphs to the font. This is no rock
The entire page text has been stroed in text table. But the recent change
page just shows the edited text.
Then,how do these text stroed?
I want to see the content(BLOB) of old_text fiels in text table.
What should I do?
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Petr Kadlec
To: Wikimedia d
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On this point, I think we need:
> * Easier management of non-PHP skins (i.e. CSS and images only)
> * Automated CSS generation (per original post)
> * Easier ways to modify the document structure, with less PHP
> involved. XSLT?
> * An interfa
Jared Williams wrote:
> Problem is quotes are also valid as part of the textual content, so
> could not italics immediately before or after an apostrophe. As in
>
> L'''arc de triomphe''
>
> Which the current parser resolves to L'arc de triomphe
What I am going to say is going to be the worst he
Jared Williams wrote:
> The problem is the ambiguity with italics, (''italics''). So the
> current parser doesn't really make its final decision on
> what should be bold or what should be italic until it hits a
> newline. If there are an even number of both bold and italics
> then it assumes it in
2009/9/25 李琴 :
> The entire page text has been stroed in text table. But the recent change
> page just shows the edited text.
> Then,how do these text stroed?
It is not stored. It is evaluated during every diff view by comparing
(diffing) the two revisions (see phase3/includes/diff/*.php). Note yo
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
>> On this point, I think we need:
>> * Easier management of non-PHP skins (i.e. CSS and images only)
>> * Automated CSS generation (per original post)
>> * Easier ways to modify the document structure, with less PHP
>> inv
IMHO the question, in this case, is not "how to build the perfect
wikitext grammar/parser", but how to ease editing of wikitext through
editor enhancements. For that, it seems sufficient to cover the vast
majority of cases instead of writing a perfect solution, as long as it
falls back to "ugly" wi
2009/9/25 Magnus Manske :
> As to the issue of getting possible template variable names: Why not
> * load the wikitext of the template in the background
> * remove all nowiki, noinclude, etc
> * get everything that looks like "{{{NAME|" or "{{{NAME}}}"
> * remove known magic words
> * Profit!
>
We
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> The notion that our editors should decide if a font is well enough
> supported is a bit off. It is saying "you cannot properly write your
> language because ...".
No, it's not. We're talking about a specific article on the English
Wikipe
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> I think it makes sense to provide some way to modify the DOM after the
> base skin is finished making HTML. Some things can be done with CSS,
> but you don't want to be making heavy use of #id:after{content:"..."}
> to add in some advertising
Hoi,
This specific character mentioned in the article is used to write the
Tanimuca-Retuarã language. This is specified in the article. itself.
Languages that need characters that are missing in fonts that are in general
use are not isolated affairs. In the end there is only one solution; we
should
I believe that this is simply bad WYSIWYG editors at work.
- Chris
2009/9/24 Nikola Smolenski
> I have noticed that a number (hundreds) of links to Wikipedia exist
> that are of the form http://xx.wikipedia.org/wiki/whatever.htm See this
> Google search for an overview:
> http://www.google.com/
This thread has gotten WAY off topic - so I wanted to try and help
clarify a few things and then get it back on-topic if at all possible.
* As Roan mentioned, we are planning on implementing a *wiki-text
*editing interface with collapsible blocks for template calls and
tables. We
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Trevor Parscal wrote:
>
>* The topic is supposed to be on Template Editing which is, at least
> in the way it's being proposed, a little less of a stale topic -
> so where is all the energy on that front? We have an XML format to
> design and co
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> I have noticed that a number (hundreds) of links to Wikipedia exist
> that are of the form http://xx.wikipedia.org/wiki/whatever.htm See this
> Google search for an overview:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wikipedia.org%2Fwiki+*
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:48:04 -0400, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Tim Starling
> wrote:
>> On this point, I think we need:
>> * Easier management of non-PHP skins (i.e. CSS and images only) *
>> Automated CSS generation (per original post) * Easier ways to modify the
>> d
2009/9/25 Brian :
> Also, I am quite serious about my point that an entirely
> new language interface specification will be added to MediaWiki and that it
> will be widely adopted and propagate throughout the wikisphere, much like
> parser functions, and in the end will make the job of fixing Media
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> 2009/9/25 Brian :
> > Also, I am quite serious about my point that an entirely
> > new language interface specification will be added to MediaWiki and that
> it
> > will be widely adopted and propagate throughout the wikisphere, much like
> >
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Brian wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
>
>> 2009/9/25 Brian :
>> > Also, I am quite serious about my point that an entirely
>> > new language interface specification will be added to MediaWiki and that
>> it
>> > will be widely ado
Brian wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Trevor Parscal
> wrote:
>
>>* The topic is supposed to be on Template Editing which is, at least
>> in the way it's being proposed, a little less of a stale topic -
>> so where is all the energy on that front? We have an XML format to
Are the XML specifications intended as?
A) A required addition to current and future templates
OR
B) An optional addition to aid / facilitate the functioning of some
advanced tools
The latter case seems far more achievable than the former case.
-Robert Rohde
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:49 PM,
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Alex wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Trevor Parscal >wrote:
> >
> >>* The topic is supposed to be on Template Editing which is, at least
> >> in the way it's being proposed, a little less of a stale topic -
> >> so where
On 9/25/09 1:18 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> Are the XML specifications intended as?
>
> A) A required addition to current and future templates
>
> OR
>
> B) An optional addition to aid / facilitate the functioning of some
> advanced tools
>
> The latter case seems far more achievable than the former
2009/9/25 Brian :
> I am not here saying that it is a bad feature, not a bit. In fact I have
> previously advocated on this list for the ability for users to specify
> form-like interfaces. What I am saying is that I think it's premature. There
> is a tradeoff that needs to be balanced here. It's e
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> 2009/9/25 Brian :
> > I am not here saying that it is a bad feature, not a bit. In fact I have
> > previously advocated on this list for the ability for users to specify
> > form-like interfaces. What I am saying is that I think it's premature
2009/9/25 Brian :
> However powerful it is, I'm not sure we can really rule out future
> incompatibility as you suggest by simply stating that we can easily
> forwardport. This feature is intended to hack a fix on top of the usability
> issues inherent in templates. Every time we have a discussion
Nikola Smolenski eunet.rs> writes:
> What I am going to say is going to be the worst heresy, but could this
> problem be solved by gradually migrating to a new wiki markup, for
> example **bold** and //italic//? This markup is more logical and easier
> to remember, more used outside of MediaWi
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> 2009/9/25 Brian :
> > However powerful it is, I'm not sure we can really rule out future
> > incompatibility as you suggest by simply stating that we can easily
> > forwardport. This feature is intended to hack a fix on top of the
> usability
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jacopo Corbetta
> wrote:
>> (HTML-style headings do not show up in the TOC, an odd
>> wikitext feature which we surely don't want newbies to use).
>
> HTML-style headings do show up in the TOC, and have for a few years as
> far as I know.
HT
On 9/25/09 11:39 AM, Brian wrote:
> I do think that sufficient energy has been directed at this topic. People
> have complained that xml is harder to edit that wikitext and that it is too
> complicated, among other things.
You seem to be talking about something utterly unrelated to this thread...
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On 9/25/09 11:39 AM, Brian wrote:
> > I do think that sufficient energy has been directed at this topic. People
> > have complained that xml is harder to edit that wikitext and that it is
> too
> > complicated, among other things.
>
> You see
2009/9/25 Brian :
> * This will fundamentally change mediawiki and the consequences of this
> feature have not been considered
> * It will support the creation of new interfaces from interfaces, simply by
> creating templates that create new templates and using the interface to that
> template to c
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> This specific character mentioned in the article is used to write the
> Tanimuca-Retuarã language. This is specified in the article. itself.
Ethnologue says it has 300 speakers, if I'm reading it correctly:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_
Brian wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Trevor Parscal wrote:
>
>>* The topic is supposed to be on Template Editing which is, at least
>> in the way it's being proposed, a little less of a stale topic -
>> so where is all the energy on that front? We have an XML format to
>>
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Steve Sanbeg wrote:
> I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. XSLT works on DOM trees, so
> malformed XML shouldn't really apply. Of course, the standard command
> line processors create this tree with a standard parser, usually an XML
> parser. But in PHP, creat
"Brian" wrote in message
news:9839a05c0909251423j7152ae51y34a6a9e586f4f...@mail.gmail.com...
>
> You have conveniently ignored the rest of my points, which are not, as you
> have claimed, off topic. (and you love to jump into threads and claim they
> have become off topic, historically, with onl
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> 2009/9/25 Brian :
> > * This will fundamentally change mediawiki and the consequences of this
> > feature have not been considered
> > * It will support the creation of new interfaces from interfaces, simply
> by
> > creating templates that cr
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Happy-melon wrote:
>
> "Brian" wrote in message
> news:9839a05c0909251423j7152ae51y34a6a9e586f4f...@mail.gmail.com...
> >
> > You have conveniently ignored the rest of my points, which are not, as
> you
> > have claimed, off topic. (and you love to jump into thre
On 9/25/09 2:23 PM, Brian wrote:
> You have conveniently ignored the rest of my points, which are not, as you
> have claimed, off topic. (and you love to jump into threads and claim they
> have become off topic, historically, with only the points that you are
> considering being on topic.)
I felt
2009/9/25 Platonides :
> Those descriptions will have to be edited by the same user base that
> edit all other pages. Even if they are power users, it's not easy to
> write correct XML on the wiki textarea. We would need to create an
> editor for the language being created so a template editor can
On 9/25/09 3:39 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> 2009/9/25 Platonides:
>> Those descriptions will have to be edited by the same user base that
>> edit all other pages. Even if they are power users, it's not easy to
>> write correct XML on the wiki textarea. We would need to create an
>> editor for the lan
2009/9/26 Brian :
> Roan, sorry that the idea is pretty hard to convey, I'll try again.
> The basic idea is that you can create templates using templates
> (just using current
> tech). It's easy, you just pass parameters to a template that control
> its output, and this
> output is a new template.
> -Original Message-
> From: wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> Roan Kattouw
> Sent: 25 September 2009 23:39
> To: Wikimedia developers
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Proposal for editing template calls
> within pages
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> Aryeh Gregor
> Sent: 25 September 2009 23:01
> To: Wikimedia developers
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] JS2 design (was Re: Working towards
> branchingMedia
Roan Kattouw wrote:
> 2009/9/25 Platonides:
>> Those descriptions will have to be edited by the same user base that
>> edit all other pages. Even if they are power users, it's not easy to
>> write correct XML on the wiki textarea. We would need to create an
>> editor for the language being created
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> 2009/9/26 Brian :
> > Roan, sorry that the idea is pretty hard to convey, I'll try again.
> > The basic idea is that you can create templates using templates
> > (just using current
> > tech). It's easy, you just pass parameters to a template
Hello.
Heres a screenshot of me editing the wikipedia:
http://zerror.com/unorganized/crap/nogoodenough.png
All the webmasters on this mail list will spot the problem with this
text in 1 second: is unreadable. The space betwen lines, the lines
length, the complexity of the text... Is really hard
> How a webmaster can make that text better? well.. you need to stop
> using the HTML textarea widget. And emulate it with divs, css and
> javascript. You need to colorize the code. Nowdays *ALL* good code
Or use a canvas..
enter Bespin!
https://bespin.mozilla.com/
_
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Platonides wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Trevor Parscal wrote:
>>
>>> * The topic is supposed to be on Template Editing which is, at least
>>> in the way it's being proposed, a little less of a stale topic -
>>> so where is
On 9/25/09 6:07 PM, Daniel Schwen wrote:
>> How a webmaster can make that text better? well.. you need to stop
>> using the HTML textarea widget. And emulate it with divs, css and
>> javascript. You need to colorize the code. Nowdays *ALL* good code
>
> Or use a canvas..
> enter Bespin!
>
> https:
On 9/25/09 6:11 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Platonides wrote:
>> Brian wrote:
>> XML is hard to edit. That's the reason wikitext was created, to "fix"
>> the issues with the, even easier, html.
>> Now, it is being proposed to add a XML processing on top of wikitext t
thanks for the constructive response :) ... comments inline
Tim Starling wrote:
I agree we should move things into a global object ie: $j and all our
components / features should extend that object. (like jquery plugins).
That is the direction we are already going.
I think it would be be
72 matches
Mail list logo
