https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40329
--- Comment #21 from Daniel Friesen <[email protected]> 2012-09-24 17:14:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > two users on different browsers may see two different things > > What are you talking about? This is not true. In the previous Wikipedia setup > with HTML5 disabled all users got the same HTML output and it looked the same > in all web browsers. Now this is broken. It does *not* look the same when a > template is tested locally for example. The hack creates a *different* result > when the finished code is finally put into a template. The hack *changes* the > *meaning* of the code no matter if these attributes were used for a reason or > not. This is confusing as hell. It makes creating templates a mess (not that > it > isn't a mess anyway). > > None of your examples ever changed the *meaning* of some code, not even the ID > example. You originally said "because you never can say how browsers were handling it (and different browsers handle stuff differently)" which seamed to imply the suggestion of a browser quirk where different browsers have different results for the same deprecated markup. That's what this separate sub-discussion was about. > > You just contradicted yourself. You just said that you were ok with align > > being removed from the whitelist. Yet that breaks things. > > I will try to speak very slow: Either remove all align attributes (drop it > from > the whitelist) or let them pass through (keep it whitelisted). In other words, > either break *everything* or *nothing*. The current hack breaks some *random* > stuff. This is not only confusing, it's completely unnecessary because every > web browser is able to handle the align attributes well. You are replicating > something that clearly is the responsibility of the web browser. Browsers support deprecated and removed html so that they can correctly render ancient websites written using HTML 3.2. We are not outputting HTML 3.2, so it's our responsibility to not output stuff that was removed. As the maintainers of WikiText it is also our responsibility to ensure that pages written in WikiText continue to work except when there is a bug we have to fix and we can't fix that bug without breaking a minimal number of pages. Outputting invalid HTML is a bug. Breaking every article when we are capable of only breaking 5 of every 6. Hence fixing the bug by translating WikiText to use valid HTML that keeps as many articles working as we can is preferable to just breaking everything that relied on the bug. > > While fixing an issue that doesn't look broken when you look at > > it is really hard. > > Again, this must be a joke. That's exactly the problem of the current hack. It > makes broken code *not* look broken. It does not fix anything. It does not > help > people to fix their outdated template code. It does the *opposite*. It's a > stupid counterproductive hack. All it does is adding confusion and breaking > some random templates for no good reason. If the output doesn't look broken to you. The output doesn't rely on browser quirks that would cause it to look broken to another user. And the output is not invalid html that constitutes a bug we need to fix. Then your wiki page is not broken. ie: If you use align="center" in WikiText, and the translation to style="text-align: center;" in HTML looks ok in your articles. Then there is no reason to stop using align="center". You're writing WikiText not HTML, so whether your WikiText validates under the HTML spec is irrelevant. When the output is valid. It's only broken if it looks broken. > > It's still a valid point that translations still work in most situations > > Again, *not* translating this worked in *all* situations till last week. You > can't say all the templates we developed in the past years are broken. They > are > *not*. They were tested in all browsers. Nothing was broken till you started > to > change our code. Yes, they were broken. Our code outputted attributes that were deprecated and removed from html into page output. ie: MediaWiki outputted incorrect markup. Which is a bug in the software. And you made templates dependent on browser quirks and MediaWiki outputting bad markup forever... ie: You relied on a bug in the software. So yes, your templates were broken And now we're fixing the bug, repurposing that WikiText to output valid HTML/CSS that is as close as we possibly can to how you wrote templates intending to behave. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
