On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>

> I have
> explicitly asked where plans for the future of the editors and the parsr
> unification project can be seen, and there has simply been no response.  Do
> those plans exist?  If so, where are they, and why are they not being
> shared wth the community.  If not, why and how is any work proceeding, and
> what process will be used to developt those plans, and in particular, hwow
> will the community be involved?  These are not questions of idle curiosity
> for one particular user's satisfaction, they issues requiring clear and
> public articuation as key components of any successful future staraegy to
> avoid the disastrous mistakes of the past.

In the past two years:

(coming up!)

Fifthly I note that there have been repeated assurances over time that the
> content of the databases will continue to be wikitext, and that wikitext
> will be directly editable, at least for the foreseeable future.  Those
> assurances came from people who oight to know and who appeared to be
> speaking on behalf of, and with the authority of the WMF.  The comments
> made by Scott do not entirely support those assurances.

The "assurances" are not as black-and-white as you seem to think.  There
are a number of ways to translate on-the-fly between alternative
representations and wikitext, as well as some debate about what "wikitext"
actually is.  If we clean up a seldom-used corner case in the wikitext
specification, is that still "wikitext"?  If we replace wikitext templates
with Scribunto templates is it still "wikitext"?  If we change boldface to
{'' ... ''} instead of triple-quotes, is that still wikitext?  Etc.
Further, see:


for broader context on the backend changes, which will make it possible to
store multiple equivalent representations of any of our content ("legacy
wikitext", "wikitext 2.0", "HTML", etc), and translate on-the-fly
back-and-forth between them.  We currently do this for Flow, for example,
where the "in database" representation is HTML, even if you are editing it
in "wikitext".  So there are lots of ways to tweak the dials to always
allow "wikitext editing" -- which, indeed, is under no attack.  (Our
archives, however, are currently in quite a perilous state due to the
currently-underspecified nature of "wikitext".)

Multi-Content Revisions has been through a public RFC process:

Indeed, the short answer to your question about process would be,
"Wikimania", "Developer Summit", and "Architecture Committee" (
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Architecture_committee).  It is rare that
any substantial project at WMF hasn't been through all three of those
public forums, and records of each are posted for the benefit of those who
can't attend.  (Although this year at Esino Lario the public process
determined that the Wikimania attendees didn't actually want to have
parsing- or wikitext-related technical discussions, and so instead I
participated in a public hackathon for offline functionality organized by
the Kiwix community.  I surveyed attendees however and everyone I talked to
indicated that WMF staff was adequately represented and no one reported any
trouble finding staff members to answer questions.)
 --scott, [[User:cscott]]

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to