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 <maxsem.wiki(a)gmail.com>
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(a)email.cz> wrote:
>> I found out, that items with class noprint are not delivered to the
>> version. Is that a bug or feature? If it is feature, then I strongly
>> to reconsider it and rather set up new class "nomobile" instead. Some
>> with noprint is useful on mobile, it just does not have a sense to
Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])