https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40329
Krinkle <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #30 from Krinkle <[email protected]> 2012-09-29 22:06:52 UTC --- Okay, lets try to get this thing back on track and work out some realistic goals. 1.20 release is coming up soon. * $wgCleanupPresentationalAttributes will be removed from core (master and REL1_20), it is currently broken and to be considered an unacceptable regression. * As for the future (whether or not working on improving it and brining it back). Changing the output of custom wikitext markup (e.g. changing the wikitext table syntax {| output to create <thead> sections) is one thing. Though that is still something to be very cautious about, it can be useful. However changing the output of simple HTML is quite another. Changing that must never exceed the boundaries of security and normalization. Anything else is imho by definition a bad idea. Trying to extract the meaning of html attributes in an automated fashion to try and update it is a lost cause. Not only will it cause confusion (do we support it or not? And if so, why are we fixing unsupported stuff? Are we going to auto-migrate everything that has been be deprecated in some a W3C HTML specification? Then we'll have to migrate HTML3.2 bgcolor="" as well (deprecated in HTML4.01). Aside from being confusing, it can also cause bugs because we're changing markup. That means that certain CSS selectors may no longer apply (`.foo center .whatever { color: pink; }`). Or certain JavaScript modules will start failing in weird unexpected ways (firstChild.nextNode.nodeName.toLowerCase() === 'center'), or the layout will change due to the difference in css weight between inline styles and deprecated attributes (or placeholder classes we would substitute) and in which order they would merge if we try to fix them. And the list of possible problems goes on. Now if there was actually some kind of victory at the end of this quest, it could be worth pursuing. But surely we don't consider passing the HTML5 validator a victory? All browsers we support support these attributes, they likely do so because old document (or old habits) die hard and they will be served through newer software frameworks. This all works just fine and there is nothing to be concerned about. The validator is a tool, no more no less. It is not a browser and we don't have to support it. -- 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
