Thanks Brion & Peter,
Brion:
> And the real hard one to figure out: PHP's gzdeflate(),
> gzinflate() set the window size to -MAX_WSIZE which
> disables the checksum. Unless you pass the same
> parameter to inflateInit(), the perl-side functions
> will expect those extra bytes and fail without explanation.
I might have searched for this for eons. I never sought of looking up
PHP spec, since I have never touched PHP.
-------------
Peter: your version dies on file 59, no more data is read,
and should not be:
Changing
while(read(FH,$in,4096)) {
to
while($bytesread=read(FH,$in,4096)) {
reveals the first chunk read was well below 4096 in these occasions.
-------------
Z_OK vs Z_STREAM_END
From
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Compress/Compress-Zlib-1.03.readme
=>
Normally the inflate method consumes I<all> of the input buffer
before returning. The exception to this is when inflate detects
the end of the stream (Z_STREAM_END). In this case the input
buffer >need not< be completely consumed. To allow processing of
file formats that embed a deflation stream (e.g. zip, gzip),
the inflate method now sets the buffer parameter to be what
remains after inflation.
When the return status is Z_STREAM_END, it will be what remains
of the buffer (if any) after deflation. When the status is Z_OK
it will be an empty string.
<=
I found that the input buffer was empty after each inflate().
So both return values are more or less equal in this case.
I also found some code eamples that treat them alike.
So I think this problem is resolved.
Thanks again.
Erik Zachte
Currently it's not possible to post to the mailinglists through
Gmane without subscribing via mail as well. Gmane requires you to confirm
your existence on the first post and runs effective spam filters. On most
mailing lists gmane posting is possible, there are no problems with spam.
My proposal is to lift the posting restriction for Gmane.
--
Gabriel Wicke
Hello,
I renamed the function fixTableTags in OutputPage.php
to fixTagAttributes. The function removeHTMLtags used
the same code to check for legal and illegal attributes
and since I wanted to change it, I didn't want to maintain
it in two places.
The changes are in version 1.74 of OutputPage.php
Regards,
JeLuF
Someone who knows mailing lists, please stand by to bail these guys out
if needed.
Ed Poor
Wikien-l Admin
-----Original Message-----
From: Poor, Edmund W.
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:19 PM
To: 'martin(a)myreddice.co.uk'; gutza(a)moongate.ro;
wikipedia(a)myreddice.co.uk; david(a)nohat.net; sean(a)epoptic.org;
fredbaud(a)ctelco.net; delirium(a)rufus.d2g.com; maveric149(a)yahoo.com;
pilich(a)btopenworld.com; james(a)jdforrester.org; cunctator(a)kband.com
Subject: Your Arbitrator Committee posts will be held unless...
Please do not add multiple recipients when posting to wikien-l or else
your post will be "held for moderator approval". And I'm going to be
offline for the next three days!!
If you have to keep the lest informed, you MUST send a separate e-mail.
Otherwise, the software automatically puts a "hold" on it. I don't know
any way to turn off this feature.
Urgently,
Ed Poor
Wikien-l Admin
I've set up a test wiki for Squid tuning at http://wiki.aulinx.de/. It's
already passing through Squid.
Current status:
* Canonical URL redirect- Main%20Page and similar redirects to
Main_Page [Done] * Purge function- does the Squid purging [Done]
* Session for anon after edit- no Cookie for anon browsing, session
start on first edit.
* Calls to PURGE- need to be added in the important places in the code
(purge on any edit).
* Cache-Control Header adjustments (easy, last step)
It would be great if one of the wizards could look into the session
adjustment- it takes me a while to figure out where and how otherwise.
It's a feature that's good to have anyway for visitors who consider
Cookies a bad thing.
The purging function works fine already, i want to add the calls at the
appropriate places next.
--
Gabriel Wicke
"Dan Carlson" <minutiaeman(a)st-minutiae.com> schrieb:
> I'd be curious to know how many "duplicate" users across wikis there
> might be. If there aren't that many -- and somehow, I don't think
> there would be (aside from maybe Meta and en) -- it could probably be a
> simple matter for someone to go through on a case-by-case basis and
> clear or resolve the two user names.
There's many of them. Luckily most of those would be the same person
indeed, but there's quite a few cases where that is not the case, or
unknown.
> I've got a question based on some previous discussion I read on the
> list: do the people using Wikipedia in other languages think that
> combining user bases is a good idea? As I understand it, not everyone
> would like the idea of combining the user accounts in such a fashion.
> (Personally, I've got no stake in the matter; I even think that
> combining the users would be a great idea, because I've got accounts on
> both en and meta. I just think the issue might need addressing, is
> all. :-))
Yes! What I would in particular like, is to have the ability to check
at once new messages on my User talk: in all languages, and having a
merged watchlist. I have a user page at about 30 Wikipedias (that's
what you get from being an active interwiki-user). It would be good
to know whenever there is a message for me anywhere (or one for
Robbot, for that matter).
Andre Engels
Hello,
I am new at wikitech-l, so I dont know what is said before to the theme
"sinle-sign-on" (yes I know I could read the archive and I tried, but it is
too long for today :-)...) but here are some thoughts from me...
If I`ve got it, we have 3 main problems:
1. There could exists users on different lang-WPs with the same name.
2. There is no (good) way to find out automatically which accounds with the
same name in different lang-WPs belong to different persons and which
belong to the one person.
3. We have actually no good solution for the first problem but as long as we
wait the problem gets larger.
So we should think first about to solve the third problem. This should be very
easy since we just have to create a new account in a new database for each
account in the old databases. Each account gets a new ID, the old name, says
from which lang-WP it is and which ID belongs to it there (and all the other
stuff belonging to the account).
If someone creates a new account, he/she has to take a name which is not used
in the new DB. A new account creates a new entry in the new database without
pointing to an lang-WP and an ID.
The lang-WPs have to use the new user-DB (and before that should be translated
to this, meaning the IDs has to be changed in the right way).
If this is done, the old user-dbs can be thrown away. (But we still need the
rows with the pointers to the old lang-WPs and the corresponding ID in the
new database as I will explain below.)
Thus we have the following situation: we have one single new user-database,
where it is allowed just for old uses to have accounts with the same name
like other users (or have more as one account with the same name).
These users have one big problem, they have to use there new ID to log in, so
they have a reason to solve there name-conflicts as described below.
Now we have everything we wanted and just the small name-conflict-problem
described above.
In the second step we have time to solve the problem with the names.
We could send automatically E-Mails to all accounts which have no unique name
(if the adresses are known) telling them which (new) IDs belong to the old
accounts (by telling them from which lang-WP there are, we even could tell
them there old ID: Ahh, for this we still need the informations!) and invite
them to merge the accounts which belongs to them! (Of course this needs a
special formular, where you have to enter the new IDs, and the old (and new)
password for each ID. Merging accounts could be a new feature of course).
We even could give them (and all others) the possibility to change there name
(which also should be a new feature), but of course just to unique names
which does not exist. This feature is somehow special, since for several
reasons the old name should be save for a longer time, i.e. it should not be
allowed for other persons to choose it for this time (but this is another
topic).
Thus the new user-database can be cleaned up to a better level. If there would
be users which does not want to change there name to solve the name-conflict
with other persons they can mark there account(s) as "under conflict". This
may will be the hard problems later.
After a while each account, whichs is not marked as "under conflict", but has
a name-conflict with an other account is changed automatically to a new name
(gets a additional number in the end of it...).
This may solves some "under-conflict"-accounts since may all other accounts
with the same name are may changed, cause they was not marked as
"under-conflict".
What to do with the rest could be discussed later...
Regards
Ivo Köthnig
Thanks to [[user:DrBob|DrBob]] for finding this: Apparently wordIQ are not
only infringing the GFDL and the copyright of wikipedia (or its
contributers), but are also stealing our bandwidth. Images in the articles
they have illegally copied from us are loaded from the wikipedia servers. (I
did a quick test by replacing [[Image:BernardLortie.JPG]] with a modified
version and having a look at
http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Bernard_Lortie)
My question: Is there any legal precedent that such action is illegal? From a
pragmatic point of view, it is clearly wrong: they are making money with
their (most probably spyware) toolbar at wikipedia's expense. Or, more
precisely, Jimbo's expense. How do things like google's image search work. I
believe they also load images from other's servers. Is there anything
specified in robots.txt about this?
Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc
Hi
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:49:06 +0100, Fantasy wrote:
> today, just surfing a bit, I found that wikipedia.it was already taken
> by someone. We had that this year for wikipedia.de (and it was solved
> fortunately without problems), but how many more are to come?
>
> *Please check your country*. The later we find out, the more difficult
> it is, to get the domain back :-(
Somone has taken wikipedia.co.uk but wikipedia.org.uk is available -- you
can check using the whois form at the bottom left of this page:
http://www.nic.uk/
As a member of Nominet I can register .uk names for a fiver each and would
be happy to register wikipedia.org.uk and pay for it and use the details
for ownership from the .org address.
If you want me to do this drop me a line (I dunno when I'll next check the
Usenet groups...).
Chris
Two or three things that make it complicated are:
* Easter Bradford used to be a contributor. He made his own user page
and wrote about gay issues.
* Someone (I forget who) made an /article/ about Easter Bradford. This
was, I think, the first case of an article WHICH WAS ABOUT a
contributor.
* At some point, maybe much later, a whole bunch of unflattering stuff
found its way into [[Easter Bradford]].
* Recently, some dude claimed Easter owed him 2 DVDs and threatened all
sorts of dire actions (in talk:Easter Bradford) if he didn't comply.
** I think personal business like that clearly has nothing to do with
making Wikipedia articles; someone cut it from the talk page, but it's
still in "history".
Ed Poor