Brion Vibber wrote: It's not valid XHTML 1.0-Strict. It's valid XHTML 1.0-Transitional, but that's not a markup standard that properly separates semantic from presentational markup. OK. I'll throw in <hr>, <em>, <strong>, <i>, and <b> in addition to <font> for <span>. We don't have _any_ legitimate use for those tags because we already have wikimarkup for them--feel free to disable them. We do have legitimate use for <span> though. That's a reduction of 5 useless tags for 1 useful one. What a deal! If you really twist my arm, we can get rid of <code>, <cite>, and <h1> to <h6>--I haven't seen any legitimate uses of them either. At the very least, there should be some kind of explanation or justification for why the current tags are allowed and why the disabled tags aren't allowed. As it stands, it's arbitrary and maddening, especially considering that people have been asking for normalization of permitted HTML tags for more than a year and no one who can has been willing to do _anything_. Sometimes it seems like only things that the current developers are interested in get done. And you can't become a developer unless you work on things that the developers are interested in, because otherwise your contributions get ignored (see e.g. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=224). And if you dare to criticize them, they just trot out the "we're just volunteers and only have to work on what we want to work on" argument. Perhaps a lesson from Spiderman is in order: with great power comes great responsibility. - David P.S. Still can't view IPA in IE using Monobook. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Andrew Dunbar wrote: Not exactly a minimal-effort IE config change for anon IE users, but I guess if that's what has to be done in the current setup, then that's what I'll put on the help page.

Yep, that's what my extension does (including converting from X-SAMPA to Unicode IPA).

Thanks. - David _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Brion Vibber wrote: It's not valid XHTML 1.0-Strict. It's valid XHTML 1.0-Transitional, but that's not a markup standard that properly separates semantic from presentational markup. OK. I'll throw in <hr>, <em>, <strong>, <i>, and <b> in addition to <font> for <span>. We don't have _any_ legitimate use for those tags because we already have wikimarkup for them--feel free to disable them. We do have legitimate use for <span> though. That's a reduction of 5 useless tags for 1 useful one. What a deal! If you really twist my arm, we can get rid of <code>, <cite>, and <h1> to <h6>--I haven't seen any legitimate uses of them either.

Gerard Meijssen wrote: If something is a heading, then it should go in the table of contents. If it's not a heading, then it shouldn't be marked up with a heading tag, wiki or otherwise. I guess the importance of separating semantic markup from presentational markup is lost on more people than I thought.

If the thing is a heading it should be in the TOC, if it is not a heading, only emphisised text, it should use bold/italic/whatever else to provide emphisis to the text, but NOT the h1/2/3/4/5/6 tags because they are only for headings. paz y amor, rjs On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:36:33 -0800, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: >Huh? I would guess that the difference is that the semantic markups are >the ones that you want to appear in the TOC, and the presentational ones >are those that you don't want there. In Wikisource I've certainly run >into texts where some headings should not be in the TOC. > >Ec > >

Do not twist MY arm by getting rid of hi to h6 they provide headings WITHOUT it comming in the table of contents. Usefull in some particular instances.