https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48429
--- Comment #35 from James Forrester <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #34) > I can't believe that section editing is marked as a "lowest priority" > "enhancement"! "Enhancement" means "the software doesn't do this, and isn't as-written meant to do this"; it's not a judgement on whether it should. "Lowest priority" means "the core developers of this are not intending to work on this issue any time soon"; bugs are always open to other developers coming and working on them, which frequently happens. "Lowest" is a very clear way of me marking the bug as something that can be taken up without fear of duplication of work by a developer new to the code. (This is known as avoiding "cookie licking".) > This is incredibly important to me. I appreciate that it is important to some editors, but I have to balance all requested features, changes and bugs with VisualEditor against one another, and in my judgement this is, relatively, an edge case. > The way it's currently set up wastes bandwidth and slows load time relative > to the old editor. Both of these are important when making a quick-fix edit. I agree with that; I recommend using the wikitext editor for exactly these use cases by power users if they prefer. > Hardly "marginal utility". That specifically refers to finding a solution which you don't want. A simpler solution - involving having the entire document available, but just not editable except for the section the user asked for - is do-able, but in that case, the benefits you're looking for (low bandwidth, fast loading time, low load on local computers) would not be present; hence, marginal utility. Solving what you're actually asking for (a form of VisualEditor/Parsoid that loaded and edited only one section at a time) would be a mammoth piece of work, albeit with some usefuless as you describe. > James, please try regular editing on a slow connection if you haven't done > this before, I'm pretty sure you'll end up editing the section source. I've edited Wikipedia (and other wikis) since 2001, including over heroically-terrible connexions through the years; I am very aware of the impact that our current site has on low-bandwidth users, even without VisualEditor, but I cannot justify spending donor funds to that extent when there are more pressing demands on the resources of the VisualEditor team. > I'm quite supportive of visual editor in general, but if this is not going > to be fixed, I may have to turn back. I'm sorry that that is the case, and hope that it does not come to that. Sorry if my explanation here is insufficient. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
