Hoi,
The language policy allows us to be flexible with how we interpret the rules. My experience is that we are not using this flexibility. I made several proposals over te last few years and they have all been torpedoed.
ASL is the latest example of this. It makes sense to allow for one Wikipedia with SignWriting because it is the only way that we will get the technical aspects of MediaWiki right. It means that issues will be exposed in Commons and Wikidata as well.
This is denied for no reason that is clear to me.
I feel that when we cannot make use of the room the policy allows us, there is no purpose for me to be a member.. It is up to the rest of the committee to consider this. I hope that we will have an ASL Wikipedia in the near future but if that is not to be, it and the implementation of the language policy is no longer my active concern. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 May 2016, at 08:18, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The language policy allows us to be flexible with how we interpret the rules. My experience is that we are not using this flexibility. I made several proposals over te last few years and they have all been torpedoed.
Which ones?
ASL is the latest example of this. It makes sense to allow for one Wikipedia with SignWriting because it is the only way that we will get the technical aspects of MediaWiki right. It means that issues will be exposed in Commons and Wikidata as well.
Can you explain why the incubator isn’t enough? I mean, if it’s not working entirely well, isn’t that a problem?
Michael Everson
Hoi, The interface of MediaWiki is right to left or left to right. With ASL it has to be top down. This is something that has never been considered. I have asked for ASL to become a full project so that the issues can be properly seen, diagnosed and remedied. It will be supported by the SignWriting Foundation. There is no chance that it will be abandoned and it is imho enough reason to allow for it to be created at this time. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 May 2016 at 15:40, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 31 May 2016, at 08:18, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The language policy allows us to be flexible with how we interpret the
rules. My experience is that we are not using this flexibility. I made several proposals over te last few years and they have all been torpedoed.
Which ones?
ASL is the latest example of this. It makes sense to allow for one
Wikipedia with SignWriting because it is the only way that we will get the technical aspects of MediaWiki right. It means that issues will be exposed in Commons and Wikidata as well.
Can you explain why the incubator isn’t enough? I mean, if it’s not working entirely well, isn’t that a problem?
Michael Everson _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hi,
Is not top/down and the various related things currently proposed by W3C mainly a task to be undertaken by browser makers? Should we not wait for the first updates to appear?
Purodha
On 31.05.2016 17:04, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The interface of MediaWiki is right to left or left to right. With ASL it has to be top down. This is something that has never been considered. I have asked for ASL to become a full project so that the issues can be properly seen, diagnosed and remedied. It will be supported by the SignWriting Foundation. There is no chance that it will be abandoned and it is imho enough reason to allow for it to be created at this time. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 May 2016 at 15:40, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 31 May 2016, at 08:18, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The language policy allows us to be flexible with how we interpret
the rules. My experience is that we are not using this flexibility. I made several proposals over te last few years and they have all been torpedoed.
Which ones?
ASL is the latest example of this. It makes sense to allow for one
Wikipedia with SignWriting because it is the only way that we will get the technical aspects of MediaWiki right. It means that issues will be exposed in Commons and Wikidata as well.
Can you explain why the incubator isn’t enough? I mean, if it’s not working entirely well, isn’t that a problem?
Michael Everson
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Browsers indeed have already implemented some support for top-down writing. But as it is with right-to-left languages, browsers only provide some infrastructure, and the web developers have to actually use it. For RTL in MediaWiki it's CSSJanus and a lot of little tweaks all over the place. For SignWriting I haven't looked into details yet, but I suppose that it's comparable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2016-05-31 8:21 GMT-07:00 Purodha Blissenbach purodha@blissenbach.org:
Hi,
Is not top/down and the various related things currently proposed by W3C mainly a task to be undertaken by browser makers? Should we not wait for the first updates to appear?
Purodha
On 31.05.2016 17:04, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The interface of MediaWiki is right to left or left to right. With ASL it has to be top down. This is something that has never been considered. I have asked for ASL to become a full project so that the issues can be properly seen, diagnosed and remedied. It will be supported by the SignWriting Foundation. There is no chance that it will be abandoned and it is imho enough reason to allow for it to be created at this time. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 May 2016 at 15:40, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 31 May 2016, at 08:18, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The language policy allows us to be flexible with how we interpret
the rules. My experience is that we are not using this flexibility. I made several proposals over te last few years and they have all been torpedoed.
Which ones?
ASL is the latest example of this. It makes sense to allow for one
Wikipedia with SignWriting because it is the only way that we will get the technical aspects of MediaWiki right. It means that issues will be exposed in Commons and Wikidata as well.
Can you explain why the incubator isn’t enough? I mean, if it’s not working entirely well, isn’t that a problem?
Michael Everson
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
The priority to implement vertical writing support in wikimedia is currently set to lowest in phabricator for some reason https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T11436 2016/06/01 12:16 "Amir E. Aharoni" amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
Browsers indeed have already implemented some support for top-down writing. But as it is with right-to-left languages, browsers only provide some infrastructure, and the web developers have to actually use it. For RTL in MediaWiki it's CSSJanus and a lot of little tweaks all over the place. For SignWriting I haven't looked into details yet, but I suppose that it's comparable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2016-05-31 8:21 GMT-07:00 Purodha Blissenbach purodha@blissenbach.org:
Hi,
Is not top/down and the various related things currently proposed by W3C mainly a task to be undertaken by browser makers? Should we not wait for the first updates to appear?
Purodha
On 31.05.2016 17:04, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The interface of MediaWiki is right to left or left to right. With ASL it has to be top down. This is something that has never been considered. I have asked for ASL to become a full project so that the issues can be properly seen, diagnosed and remedied. It will be supported by the SignWriting Foundation. There is no chance that it will be abandoned and it is imho enough reason to allow for it to be created at this time. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 May 2016 at 15:40, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 31 May 2016, at 08:18, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The language policy allows us to be flexible with how we interpret
the rules. My experience is that we are not using this flexibility. I made several proposals over te last few years and they have all been torpedoed.
Which ones?
ASL is the latest example of this. It makes sense to allow for one
Wikipedia with SignWriting because it is the only way that we will get the technical aspects of MediaWiki right. It means that issues will be exposed in Commons and Wikidata as well.
Can you explain why the incubator isn’t enough? I mean, if it’s not working entirely well, isn’t that a problem?
Michael Everson
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The language policy allows us to be flexible with how we interpret the rules. My experience is that we are not using this flexibility. I made several proposals over te last few years and they have all been torpedoed.
ASL is the latest example of this. It makes sense to allow for one Wikipedia with SignWriting because it is the only way that we will get the technical aspects of MediaWiki right. It means that issues will be exposed in Commons and Wikidata as well.
This is denied for no reason that is clear to me.
I feel that when we cannot make use of the room the policy allows us, there is no purpose for me to be a member.. It is up to the rest of the committee to consider this. I hope that we will have an ASL Wikipedia in the near future but if that is not to be, it and the implementation of the language policy is no longer my active concern.
Gerard, while I personally think ASL should go, I completely understand MF-Warburg's position.
You are the one who is insisting on the strict interpretation of the rules whenever it doesn't affect what you want and it's seriously frustrating to deal with you in that sense. In fact, it's that much frustrating, that you left as the only person pushing non-strict interpretation of the rules last few years.
I suppose we should change something to make things go smoothly.
There are several things that I fail to understand despite repeated discussions about this topic: * What are the particular technical issues that cannot be resolved in the Incubator? The best place to file this is Phabricator. Can they be filed there? * Is there a clear migration path from the current way of storing the text to true Unicode? * How does the input work?
My impression with Yair and other volunteers working on this skin has been very positive till now. I don't doubt their programming skill and their commitment to the project. I'm not just being polite—this actually is my impression. Nonetheless, I need a clear explanation about the reasons why we should bypass the usual confirmation of incubator activity. Getting *direct* and *detailed* answers to the questions above from the people who do the technical work on them will help move things forward. I'm sorry, but Gerard's statement that "it is the only way that we will get the technical aspects of MediaWiki right" is a generalization, and it is neither direct nor detailed.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2016-05-31 0:18 GMT-07:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi,
The language policy allows us to be flexible with how we interpret the rules. My experience is that we are not using this flexibility. I made several proposals over te last few years and they have all been torpedoed.
ASL is the latest example of this. It makes sense to allow for one Wikipedia with SignWriting because it is the only way that we will get the technical aspects of MediaWiki right. It means that issues will be exposed in Commons and Wikidata as well.
This is denied for no reason that is clear to me.
I feel that when we cannot make use of the room the policy allows us, there is no purpose for me to be a member.. It is up to the rest of the committee to consider this. I hope that we will have an ASL Wikipedia in the near future but if that is not to be, it and the implementation of the language policy is no longer my active concern. Thanks, GerardM
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi,
There are several parts to this. There is the technical part of it. There is the principle behind my stance.
When you look at a page in the asl incubator [1] it is full of English and we do want a complete UI in ASL. I have no clue how an ASL UI should look and we will never figure it out without an environment that is completely top down. The notion that I should comment on Phabricator is something I reject. It is not an environment that I frequent. It has everything to do with the fact that it did not work well for me in the past.
The second part is that it has been argued before that we should be more forthcoming in enabling new projects. This project has two arguments going for it. The technical one and the fact that an organisation supports it and will not abandon it. Yair and Steve are of that organisation and community. I have argued before that when a credible organisation supports a language, an organisation that has no POV as far as content is concerned, we can be more forthcoming.
When Milos argues that my position was rather strong on something in the past, he does not provide an argument that is relevant to this case. I therefore ignore it.
I do have sufficient experience in computing to know that it is not trivial to solve all the technical issues. I am disappointed in the use of the flexibility that we have in our policy and at some stage I have to decide how to spend my time. When it is proven to me yet again how inflexible we are I fail to see a benefit of my involvement.
Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/ase/M510x546S20320495x455S1fb20495x4...
On 31 May 2016 at 19:36, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
There are several things that I fail to understand despite repeated discussions about this topic:
- What are the particular technical issues that cannot be resolved in the
Incubator? The best place to file this is Phabricator. Can they be filed there?
- Is there a clear migration path from the current way of storing the text
to true Unicode?
- How does the input work?
My impression with Yair and other volunteers working on this skin has been very positive till now. I don't doubt their programming skill and their commitment to the project. I'm not just being polite—this actually is my impression. Nonetheless, I need a clear explanation about the reasons why we should bypass the usual confirmation of incubator activity. Getting *direct* and *detailed* answers to the questions above from the people who do the technical work on them will help move things forward. I'm sorry, but Gerard's statement that "it is the only way that we will get the technical aspects of MediaWiki right" is a generalization, and it is neither direct nor detailed.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2016-05-31 0:18 GMT-07:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi,
The language policy allows us to be flexible with how we interpret the rules. My experience is that we are not using this flexibility. I made several proposals over te last few years and they have all been torpedoed.
ASL is the latest example of this. It makes sense to allow for one Wikipedia with SignWriting because it is the only way that we will get the technical aspects of MediaWiki right. It means that issues will be exposed in Commons and Wikidata as well.
This is denied for no reason that is clear to me.
I feel that when we cannot make use of the room the policy allows us, there is no purpose for me to be a member.. It is up to the rest of the committee to consider this. I hope that we will have an ASL Wikipedia in the near future but if that is not to be, it and the implementation of the language policy is no longer my active concern. Thanks, GerardM
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
2016-05-31 11:54 GMT-07:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi,
There are several parts to this. There is the technical part of it. There is the principle behind my stance.
When you look at a page in the asl incubator [1] it is full of English and we do want a complete UI in ASL. I have no clue how an ASL UI should look and we will never figure it out without an environment that is completely top down.
As I already mentioned, it's possible to switch the UI language to ase, just like to any other. One way to do this is to go to Preferences -> Internationalization and select "ase". It works for me.
The notion that I should comment on Phabricator is something I reject. It is not an environment that I frequent. It has everything to do with the fact that it did not work well for me in the past.
Sorry, but it does work for a lot of people. It's the only thing that works for staff and volunteer engineers.
The second part is that it has been argued before that we should be more forthcoming in enabling new projects. This project has two arguments going for it. The technical one
If it's the thing you mentioned above, then I just showed you how it can function in the Incubator. Is there anything else?