Platonides schreef: >> (it's helpfully provided in the API result . . . actually, what >> does it mean that "Portal" and "Portal talk" are canonical? shouldn't >> there be no canonical attribute if the namespace is custom?). > > Agree. Portal and Portal talk could still be acceptable, since the > namespace ids 100-101 are more or less reserved for portals across the > wikis. > What is scaryier is seeing <ns id="102" canonical="Cookbook"> on > enwikibooks whereas the same ns 102 mean Wikiproject on some pedias. > > Since the API provides namespacealiases linked to the id, not to the > "informal canonical name" I see no reason to keep the canonical > parameter on the extra ns. > This was brought up before in bug 16672 comment #5. My reply was:
> b) custom namespaces shouldn't have a canonical name Maybe, maybe not; I see arguments for and against. But since $wgCanonicalNames contains canonical names for custom namespaces too and since removing the canonical attribute for some namespaces but not others would violate expectations and be a breaking change, I'll just keep stuff the way it is. Regardless of whether custom namespaces should or shouldn't have a canonical name, removing it from the API output isn't worth the trouble. Roan Kattouw (Catrope) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
