"Platonides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ilmari Karonen wrote:
>
> I don't think it's really a saner syntax.
That's not the point. It's a *safer* syntax. Using {{int:lang}} breaks
cache integrity: if you put {{SomeTemplate/{{int:lang}}} (or equally some
{{USERLANGUAGE}} magic word if it existed) on a page and save it, the link
that's added to the templatelinks table is the template subpage the *editor*
gets, but a viewer with a different language can get a different page. I
assume (before Tim shouts at me too, no I haven't read the code either) that
"The converter operates at a near-HTML stage of the parser" implies that
it's *way* after template expansion... are the "-{...}-" strings
stripmarked-out at that stage? Essentially, the key is that they can't
affect the transclusion structure of the rest of the page.
>>
>> -{af: {{GFDL/af}}; als: {{GFDL/als}}; an: {{GFDL/an}}; ar: {{GFDL/ar}};
>> ast: {{GFDL/ast}}; be: {{GFDL/be}}; be-tarask: {{GFDL/be-tarask}}; <!--
>> ...and so on for about 70 more languages -->}-
The above begs the question, of course, would this switch actually work?
And if it does, how does it affect the cache and linktables? More
investigation needed, methinks....
I think the obstructions to implementing en-gb/en-us conversion on enwiki
would be social rather than technical. They've just gone through six months
of hell over date autoformatting, culminating in a decision to scrap the
system entirely and hence not support users being able to choose between
American and International *date formats*. If they don't even want to
support those, getting a full language conversion supported *would* be like
herding cats...
--HM
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
