Rob Lanphier wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: >> Are you following the deployment plan outlined by Roan here: >> <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27478#c18>? (It was a >> follow-up to Aryeh's post here: >> <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-June/053775.html>. > > That plan may be more conservative than we need to be, given it's been > enabled on mediawiki.org for so long. At the time Aryeh wrote that, > the feature hadn't been as well tested as it is now. That's not to > say that we won't find bugs, but that I don't think there will be as > many, that they aren't likely to be severe, and it seems we're in a > better position to address them quickly than we were when that was > written. I wouldn't mind going that route if a lot of other people > feel we should, but it seems likely to me that we might accidentally > introduce production glitches in the process of implementing the > interim steps, and that there could very well be bugs in the interim > states that don't occur in the final stage.
I agree that it's more conservative and likely needlessly so. Aryeh has since clarified that the source of most of the previous breakage ($wgExperimentalHtmlIds) was enabled and then re-disabled by default: <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27694#c6>. As long as $wgExperimentalHtmlIds stays disabled, the issues with Cite, etc. shouldn't re-appear and $wgHtml5 should be safe to enable. >> As I understand it, the "enable HTML5 on Wikimedia wikis" goal has become a >> bit murky. There's $wgHtml5, but that's distinct from setting the doctype >> (which is what I think most people consider to be the most relevant part). > > Are you sure that $wgHtml5 is distinct from the doctype? It looks > like mediawiki.org also has the doctype set, and it looks as though > Html.php sets it based on that variable. Sorry, I was a little unclear here. I was talking about $wgDocType and $wgDTD, as discussed by Roan here: <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27478#c18>. By default, the DOCTYPE is automatically set to "<!DOCTYPE html>\n" when $wgHtml5 is set to true (from includes/Html.php): --- if ( $wgHtml5 ) { $ret .= "<!DOCTYPE html>\n"; if ( $wgHtml5Version ) { $attribs['version'] = $wgHtml5Version; } } --- Roan's plan called for adjusting the DOCTYPE and/or DTD before setting $wgHtml5 to true. This is probably unnecessary to do, as you say. My point was that for most people, the DOCTYPE is the most important/relevant piece and that setting $wgDocType = '<!doctype html>\n' is (or can be, rather) distinct from setting $wgHtml5 = 'true';. Depending on how much new and untested code is reliant on $wgHtml5, setting only the DOCTYPE might be a good interim solution iff issues arise with $wgHtml5, but you want to output an HTML5 DOCTYPE. >> It's also unclear whether every issue reported in the comments of bug 27478 >> were filed as separate bugs. In particular, I'm unsure if Cite was ever >> properly fixed (or if Aryeh's mentioned alternate, stop-gap solution was >> implemented). As I recall, the Cite breakage was breaking links in articles. > > This is what I'm hoping we can get some clarity on. How many of those > comments are still relevant? > > FWIW, I'm not in a big rush to enable this; it's just that it seems > like we're running out of good reasons not to just do it already. I believe not enabling $wgHtml5 is holding up other development efforts (based on some of the comments at bug 27478, e.g., comments 15 and 21). I also don't see (m)any good reasons to not just do it already. :-) MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
