2008/2/20, DanTMan <dan_the_man(a)telus.net>et>:
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a
href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&action=edit&section=T-2"
title="Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors">edit</a>]</span> <span
class="mw-headline">Errors in the summary of <i>Today's featured
article</i> on the Main Page</span></h2>
<p><a name="Errors_in_In_the_news"
id="Errors_in_In_the_news"></a></p>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a
href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&action=edit&section=T-3"
title="Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors">edit</a>]</span> <span
class="mw-headline">Errors in <i>In the
news</i></span></h2>
<ul>
<li>The Wikileaks entry says it is "offline", but this is not true. As
our <a href="/wiki/Wikileaks"
title="Wikileaks">Wikileaks</a> article says, it is still online at its
IP address. --<a href="/wiki/User:Jedravent"
title="User:Jedravent">Jedravent</a> (<a
href="/wiki/User_talk:Jedravent" title="User
talk:Jedravent">talk</a>) 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>I just tried the links.
Wikileaks.org is still off-line, but
Wikileaks.be (a mirror site?) is accessible. If you think the wrong link has been placed
on the <a href="/wiki/Wikileaks"
title="Wikileaks">Wikileaks</a> article, please discuss this at <a
href="/wiki/Talk:Wikileaks"
title="Talk:Wikileaks">Talk:Wikileaks</a>. Thanks. --<a
href="/wiki/User:PFHLai" title="User:PFHLai">PFHLai</a>
(<a href="/wiki/User_talk:PFHLai" title="User
talk:PFHLai">talk</a>) 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
<dl>
<dd>Still, Wikileaks is not "offline", as it can still be accessed.
--<a href="/wiki/User:Jedravent"
title="User:Jedravent">Jedravent</a> (<a
href="/wiki/User_talk:Jedravent" title="User
talk:Jedravent">talk</a>) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
<dl>
<dd>I agree, the headline is misleading. Wikileaks is not offline. Their previous
primary domain name,
wikileaks.org is no longer available by court order. If we are going
to keep this, we need to explain the situation without misleading people <a
href="/wiki/User:Nil_Einne" title="User:Nil Einne">Nil
Einne</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Nil_Einne" title="User
talk:Nil Einne">talk</a>) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>Wikileaks entry should say "the
Wikileaks.org site is unavailable, however
the site remains online an can be reached via its mirrors.<a
href="/w/index.php?title=User:Thalia42&action=edit"
class="new" title="User:Thalia42">Thalia42</a> (<a
href="/wiki/User_talk:Thalia42" title="User
talk:Thalia42">talk</a>) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</dd>
</dl>
It is not necessary. I think it should like this:
<h2>Errors in <i>In the
news</i></h2>
<ul>
<li>
The Wikileaks entry says it is "offline", but this is not true. As our <a
wtitle="Wikileaks">Wikileaks</a> article says, it is still online at
its IP address.<a wtitle="User:Jedravent">Jedravent</a> (<a
wtitle="User talk:Jedravent">talk</a>) 16:51, 19 Febuary 2008 (UTC)
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
I just tried the links. <a
href="http://Wikileaks.org">Wikileaks.org</a> is still off-line, but
<a href="http://Wikileaks.be">Wikileaks.be</a> (a mirror site?) is
accessible. If you think the wrong link has been placed on the Wikileaks article, please
discuss this at Talk:Wikileaks. Thanks. --<a
wtitle="User:PFHLai">PFHLai</a> (<a wtitle="User
talk:PFHLai>talk</a>) 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote>
Still, Wikileaks is not "offline", as it can still be accessed. --<a
wtitle="User:Jedravent">Jedravent</a> (<a wtitle="User
talk:Jedravent">talk</a>) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote>
I agree, the headline is misleading. Wikileaks is not offline. Their previous primary
domain name,
wikileaks.org is no longer available by court order. If we are going to keep
this, we need to explain the situation without misleading people <a
wtitle="User:Nil_Einne">Nil Einne</a> (<a wtitle="User
talk:Nil_Einne">talk</a>) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Wikileaks entry should say "the <a
href="http://Wikileaks.org">Wikileaks.org</a> site is unavailable,
however the site remains online an can be reached via its mirrors.<a
wtitle="User:Thalia42">Thalia42</a> (<a wtitle="User
talk:Thalia42">talk</a>) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
</blockquote>
Isn't it too difficult for you?
Daniel Kinzler <daniel(a)brightbyte.de>
XHTML would only be good for the formatting aspects.
It can't represent
parser
functions, template calls, etc. XML lets you mix and match vocabularies,
of course.
I have never said that we'll use native XHTML. I said that Wikitext is too
loose, making it difficult to parse and we waste a lot of work hours for it.
What I suggest is a XML-based markup because it's less painful and I can
prove with you, it can represent anything Wikitext can. We just only add
some tags as: <if>, <include>, <value-of> and even <for-each>,...
It's sound
complicated but it isn't more complicated than Wikitext at all. It's nothing
more than Wikitext structures rewritten in XML style. It's good because it's
clearer, easier to parse and not too difficult to read.