Hello,
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* it.
Kind regards
Danny B.
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!
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/43852
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Danny B. Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz wrote:
Hello,
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* it.
Kind regards
Danny B.
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
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:
Hello,
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* it.
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@gmail.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:
Hello,
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* it.
-- Best regards, Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])
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 jdlrobson@gmail.com 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 maxsem.wiki@gmail.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:
Hello,
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* it.
-- Best regards, Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])
-- Jon Robson http://jonrobson.me.uk @rakugojon
I am inclined to agree with Jon and make the change - especially considering there has been radio silence about the change on this list, I suspect it will be ok, unless there is a better forum to discuss these kinds of changes (eg wikitech-l)?
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
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 jdlrobson@gmail.com 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 maxsem.wiki@gmail.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:
Hello,
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*
it.
-- Best regards, Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])
-- Jon Robson http://jonrobson.me.uk @rakugojon
-- Jon Robson http://jonrobson.me.uk @rakugojon
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l