Chad H. <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #6 from Chad H. <> 2010-03-16 21:39:51 UTC 
(In reply to comment #5)
> After further thought, I also have to agree that the switch approach is not a
> good idea in this case, and would be happy with the suggested switch on
> Special:ExpandTemplates.
> However, I do have to disagree with a couple things Conrad said: First, this
> most certainly *would* achieve something, since many of our most complicated -
> and most ported - templates rely on Tidy to display correctly, it requires
> reusers to either install Tidy, or to find a version of the template designed
> to work without it (or, more often, to develop such a version themselves). And
> second, Tidy only influences output, it doesn't have any effect on how the
> parser works (and fixing only the parser's output should not (in theory) break
> any template which relies on bugs in how the parser handles input). Therefore,
> while disabling Tidy would, in some cases, break output, it would not change
> how templates actually work.

It won't change how they work, but it will change the output, and that's all
that matters to users. We've been fixing output with Tidy for years, and people
have come to rely on it, whether they know it or not. Should we all write
templates that don't rely on Tidy? Yep. Would be nice if we didn't need Tidy?
Of course. 

I do think a toggle on ExpandTemplates would be very useful, though. Wouldn't
be surprised if we find some parser bugs long-obscured by Tidy after opening
this up ;-)

Configure bugmail:
------- 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

Reply via email to