On 9/17/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/09/2007, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
<pathoschild(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Likewise, to my surprise. Has it been fixed recently? I'm sure it
didn't used to work.
I have a vague recollection it was fixed several months ago.
On 9/17/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/17/07, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Do you just want the ability to make two
citation-like lists per
article whereas you can make one now? If that's the case wouldn't a
system where you can make and flush an arbitrary number of lists be
better?
How many are we likely to want? Enough that general-purposing the
mechanism (rather than a second instance) makes sense?
Yes. Someone might want per-section notes for some reason, for
instance (this is common on enwiki "Comparison of X" pages right now,
in my experience).
On 9/17/07, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If that's the case I think *implementation wise*
it would be a neat
idea to support reference groups, so the above could be written as:
"""
Some statement<ref group="references" name="ref name">This is
a
reference</ref> and something to note<ref group="notes"
name="note
name">This is a note</ref>.
== References ==
<references group="references"/>
== Notes ==
<references group="notes"/>
"""
Before I got commit access, I wrote up and submitted a patch
implementing exactly that syntax. I do plan on revisiting it someday,
cleaning it up and committing it.