On the Nauruan wikipedia, they call their language Nauruose. On the interlinks it is called Nauruan. (http://na.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauruose)
As languages are indicated in the way it is written in that language, I think this should be amended.
On en: there is this _ugly_ message like "Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauri_language""
If this must be on each page, have it under the category with at least a blank line above it. The onus of referring to wikipedia is on the site that has copied wikipedia not for us to have this on our pages as well.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard.Meijssen wrote:
On en: there is this _ugly_ message like "Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauri_language""
Force a reload to update your stylesheet.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On en: there is this _ugly_ message like "Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauri_language""
Force a reload to update your stylesheet.
Like many others, my browser is altogether ignorant of stylsheets, and thus the Wikipedia markup fancies that I must be viewing the page on paper. Why is this? In particular:
<div class="printfooter">Retrieved from "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark</a>"</div>
Rather than selectively hiding elements from print media, why not generate these using content: selectors? The message above is perfectly suited to this, as while browsers will not interpolate markup generated as a result of said selectors, the markup used in this example is pointless anyway -- unless, of course, you've come up with a method of following hyperlinks on a printed page.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Austin Hair wrote:
Rather than selectively hiding elements from print media,
That's the correct way of doing it.
why not generate these using content: selectors?
Because then they won't show up when people print the page with a less conforming browser.
Timwi
Rather than selectively hiding elements from print media,
That's the correct way of doing it.
According to whom? I've yet to see this as a W3C recommendation; in fact, this is the reason content selectors were created in the first place.
why not generate these using content: selectors?
Because then they won't show up when people print the page with a less conforming browser.
Consider the number of people printing Wikipedia articles from "less comforming browsers" vs. the number of people actually viewing Wikipedia articles online. Is this the correct assumption to make? Why do we have to endure such frivolities as painting the current URL boldly across the page, especially when this is almost always in the print header to begin with?
Timwi
Austin Hair wrote:
Consider the number of people printing Wikipedia articles from "less comforming browsers" vs. the number of people actually viewing Wikipedia articles online. Is this the correct assumption to make? Why do we have to endure such frivolities as painting the current URL boldly across the page, especially when this is almost always in the print header to begin with?
Having the URL on the screen doesn't do any harm. Having the URL be missing from the printed page does more harm.
Having the URL on the screen doesn't do any harm. Having the URL be missing from the printed page does more harm.
"Harm?" This feature was only introduced last week. Were we somehow hurt by the lack of this text before?
The phrase "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" makes the attribution clear, IMO, and most browsers print the URL in the heading of each page by default. This, however, is hardly the point -- I'm not arguing for the removal of the text, as most have noticed, but rather for its re-implementation using CSS.
Austin Hair wrote:
Having the URL on the screen doesn't do any harm. Having the URL be missing from the printed page does more harm.
"Harm?" This feature was only introduced last week. Were we somehow hurt by the lack of this text before?
No, this is not true. It has always been there in the previous skin. It has only been overlooked in the Monobook skin, so it was added last week. It is easy to miss because not many people look at the print preview very often; still, it is important to have the message on printed pages.
Timwi
Roman Maurer wrote:
Timwi pravi:
Having the URL on the screen doesn't do any harm.
Sure it does. It decreases the readability of the text.
It’s not in the middle of content, it’s at the very end. How does that decrease readability?
Roman Maurer wrote:
Timwi pravi:
Having the URL on the screen doesn't do any harm.
Sure it does. It decreases the readability of the text.
Yes, maybe you are right -- and while we are at it, we might as well remove those annoying tabs at the top. And the distracting row of links at the left. And the article title, the TOC, and most importantly, the article text. They decrease readability like hell.
Timwi
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 03:18:02 -0700, Austin Hair callidus@austinhair.org wrote:
Like many others, my browser is altogether ignorant of stylsheets, and
"Like many others"? Which browser is this? uhh... lynx? links? elinks? Even Internet Explorer 4 should support the little "hidden" trick that they just did, methinks.
"Like many others"? Which browser is this? uhh... lynx? links? elinks? Even Internet Explorer 4 should support the little "hidden" trick that they just did, methinks.
Text browsers, screen readers, braille devices, thousands of antiquated browser installations in libraries, educational institutions, developing countries...
There's a reason we use XHTML and CSS to begin with; while my beef is so minor as to be inconsequential, certain design choices strike me as being a bit ironic.
Austin Hair wrote:
There's a reason we use XHTML and CSS to begin with; while my beef is so minor as to be inconsequential, certain design choices strike me as being a bit ironic.
And the XHTML+CSS way is to “display: none;” what you don’t want to show.
Screen readers and Braille consoles don’t support it, that’s correct. Gives people a great way to place Skip the menu links on their sites :) Why, though, is it an ugly message? Because of the word Nauri? In that case it would be better to focus on getting the article renamed to “Nauruan language”. I don’t know any other reasons.
And the XHTML+CSS way is to ?display: none;? what you don?t want to show.
Screen readers and Braille consoles don?t support it, that?s correct. Gives people a great way to place Skip the menu links on their sites :)
This is precisely the usage prescribed by display: none, and the way I use it on many of my live sites to ensure WAI AAA compliance. This is not the usage being discussed, however; the matter at hand is the generation of content for specific media--one specific medium, in fact, out of the numerous possibilities.
Why, though, is it an ugly message? Because of the word Nauri? In that case it would be better to focus on getting the article renamed to ?Nauruan language?. I don?t know any other reasons.
I have nothing against the Nauri or the Nauruan language; I'm sure they're wonderful people with a robust and elegant tongue. My complaint is far more generic. :)
Austin Hair wrote:
This is precisely the usage prescribed by display: none, and the way I use it on many of my live sites to ensure WAI AAA compliance. This is not the usage being discussed, however; the matter at hand is the generation of content for specific media--one specific medium, in fact, out of the numerous possibilities.
Ooookay, re-read the first thing, and finally I understand.
1) interwiki links should say Nauruose 2) everywhere there is this “Retrieved from "%URL% "” text which isn’t aesthetic. It can be translated though, that’s a good thing!
Digging through HTML sources made me notice that on some places there are ' used as attribute value containers!
Here’s something from wp:de
<li><a href='http://www.trussel.com/kir/naudel.htm' class='external' title="http://www.trussel.com/kir/naudel.htm">Wörterbuch Deutsch - Nauruisch</a> <span class='urlexpansion'>(<i>http://www.trussel.com/kir/naudel.htm</i>)</span></li> </ul>
Grrr! Really!
Ralesk Ne'vennoyx wrote:
Digging through HTML sources made me notice that on some places there are ' used as attribute value containers!
Sorry if that offends you. ' is easier to type in a string literal as it doesn't require a backslash escape. :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Ralesk Ne'vennoyx wrote:
Digging through HTML sources made me notice that on some places there are ' used as attribute value containers!
Sorry if that offends you. ' is easier to type in a string literal as it doesn't require a backslash escape. :)
*tilts his head* wasn’t though " the one true holy character accepted by W3C? ’Tis not me, it’s the standards :)
Ralesk Ne'vennoyx wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Ralesk Ne'vennoyx wrote:
Digging through HTML sources made me notice that on some places there are ' used as attribute value containers!
Sorry if that offends you. ' is easier to type in a string literal as it doesn't require a backslash escape. :)
*tilts his head* wasn’t though " the one true holy character accepted by W3C? ’Tis not me, it’s the standards :)
Nope.
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-common-syn
AttValue ::= '"' ([^<&"] | Reference)* '"' | "'" ([^<&'] | Reference)* "'"
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Gerard.Meijssen wrote:
On the Nauruan wikipedia, they call their language Nauruose. On the interlinks it is called Nauruan. (http://na.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauruose)
I have committed in this change to CVS.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org