Using LTR text with RTL user interface, and vice versa, is trivial since MediaWiki 1.19.
What is not trivial is mixing RTL and LTR content. The only way to do it currently is to use HTML tags with the appropriate attributes, such as <dir="rtl" lang="he" class="mw-content-rtl">, or templates that insert such tags. It's not robust. Two steps are needed to make it better: 1. Proper definition of a page's language. See bug https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9360 . Recently there were discussions about it on wikitech-l and there are even some patches that try to resolve it, but it's far from being finalized. Of course it's possible to just put the whole page in a <div> with the right attributes, but it's not robust. 2. Proper support for definition of language inside a paragraph, for example an English paragraph quoting. This, too, is possible with tags, but it's not robust. I am very glad to say that this is being done for the VisualEditor as a Google Summer of Code project by Moriel Schottlender (User:Mooeypoo) with Inez from the VE team and yours-truly as mentors. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore 2013/6/2 Andrea Zanni <[email protected]> > > Hi all, > I didn't read the whole discussion, > but let me put here few links: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikisource/Archives/2003 (there are more > archives..) > and http://wikisource.org/wiki/User:Angela > > From what I recall, the problem was Hebrew Wikisource, and generally LTR > languages. > As Amir (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Aaharoni, cc'ed) can > explain to us, > LTR languages are a big and underrated issue. > > Aubrey > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jane Darnell, 02/06/2013 11:12: > >> Alex thanks for that perspective. I myself was wondering if anyone >> counted how many entries are in the books category here: >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Books >> >> and then the entries for books per sister project on Wikisource. My >> gut feeling is that the number per Wikisource entity will be smaller, >> but I may be wrong > > > Yes but that's not a problem, it's a feature. Wikisource is (currently) not > for browsing masses of books like archive.org or Google Books (which do that > job very well); it's for choosing a subset of those books and working on them > more intensively for interlinking, proofreading etc. There may be thousands > of "unused" books on Commons, but there are millions more out there: > Wikisource uses and encourages work on those which makes most sense to work > on (in theory). > I don't think this relates to splitting/reunifying that much, but Alex is > right in pointing out how there are some aspects that we *could* want to > solve; once you define what you want to solve, it's easier to decide tools > for it. > > Nemo > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikisource-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
