If this is true, then to add a big button "Validate" to edit by ajax the code of the page (the header section only needs to be changed if there's no error to fix into the txt) should be a banal task for a good programmer.
Perhaps Andrea is asking for much more, but this could be a first step. Alex 2015-08-10 14:47 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nico...@gmail.com>: > 2015-08-10 15:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Brollo <alex.bro...@gmail.com>: > > > > First point is: > > is it a safe practice to validate a page without reviewing its raw code? > > Probably yes. > Obviously, it's safer to check the raw code but it's unrealistic to expect > the raw code to be review for all page. Anyway, the pages doesn't contain a > lot of code (and most pages does'nt contain code at all), so it doesn't > seems to be crucial to me. > Plus : when VisualEditor will be on WS, less and less people will actually > see the raw wikicode. > > > A second point: is it a safe practice to validate a page without > carefully reviewing its transclusion into ns0? > > Definitively yes. > When can a transclusion can go wrong? In all cases I can think of, the > problem come from templates, css classes or general stuff like that. It > should be fixed generally and it shouldn't block the page validation since > it have nothing to do the the page itself (but maybe I'm missing an obvious > example here). > > > Alex > > Cdlt, ~nicolas > > _______________________________________________ > Wikisource-l mailing list > Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
