Indeed. It was a milestone compared to what went before, and enabled citing to become a norm or expectation (rather than an option) in practice not just theory.
But its some years on and we're in the #5 and useability... methynks we can do better still :) FT2 On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:31 PM, stevertigo <stv...@gmail.com> wrote: > FT2<ft2.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Actually is there a reason why refs couldn't have a separate section? > > The main disadvantage would be technical - revision data held in an extra > > field. > > IIRC Greg Maxwell mentioned something about this a couple years ago. > He acknowledged the issue of diminished edit-mode readability was > valid, but there was a technical and practical issue with putting refs > in a separate section. At the time, as his <refs> setup was new and > quite an improvement over the previous, so there wasn't much interest > in improving its inferface issues. > > -Stevertigo > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
