Any further thoughts on this? Should I abandon the patchset...? Does
anyone want to own this problem?
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jon Robson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I think this is a pessimistic view of things. I don't suspect this
> would have a catastrophic change and we could always add a boolean in
> LocalSettings.php in case we feel this will and need to roll back.
> Realistically the fall out here is going to be a nuisance more than
> anything and certain content will appear that didn't use to.
> I personally think the best form of communication is to make the
> change and then deal with the fallout. If something is rendering
> strangely then people will notice and complain and we'll get that
> fixed. This will happen in a much quicker time then spending time
> exploring the impact and communicating and waiting for people to make
> their changes with no incentive.
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Max Semenik <email@example.com> wrote:
>> While I certainly agree in principle, do we know how many pages are
>> relying on this feature? Also, some communication would be good.
>> On 14.01.2013, 22:21 Jon wrote:
>>> I agree.
>>> We already have the nomobile class and have done so for a while. The
>>> noprint class has been removed from sometime and never got reevaluated
>>> with the addition of nomobile
>>> Thanks for pointing this out!
>>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Danny B.
>>> <Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz> wrote:
>>>> I found out, that items with class noprint are not delivered to the mobile
>>>> version. Is that a bug or feature? If it is feature, then I strongly suggest
>>>> to reconsider it and rather set up new class "nomobile" instead. Some stuff
>>>> with noprint is useful on mobile, it just does not have a sense to *print*
>> Best regards,
>> Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])
> Jon Robson
Mobile-l mailing list