hello,
from time to time I would like to use <span> tag for inline element styling, but it's not supported, so I have to use <div> and dirty tricks to get it done, but it's not the same: since DIV is not an inherent inline element, it's very hard to use it for blending something into the normal text flow (like math for example, see my hack on meta/mediawiki user guide/math using div instead of span).
maybe i'm wrong and there shouldn't be such styling on wikipedia pages (people against tags would say "it makes wikitext harder to read for nontech people"), so please share your opinion. I would like to use span, and would like to have it enabled in mediawiki pages. As far as I know it does not present cross-scripting or other vulnerabilities (I didn't explore this topic too deep though).
if nobody objects or convinces me that I'm on the road to hell I'll try to convince brion (which is probably the hardest part :)).
thanks, peter
I wish you the best of luck in your campaign. I've asked for <span> tags TWICE before and got shot down twice with the explanation that <span> tags make the wikitext harder to read (as though <div> tags were somehow better) and that there should be some universal styles for styling particular things, with wikiformatting tags to go along with them. I hope you can be more convincing than I was. Of course, said universal styles never got made and we go on, unable to make <span> tags, and with no real substitute other than the long-deprecated <font> tag and its friends. Enabling them requires changing exactly one line of code.
Sigh.
- David
Peter Gervai wrote:
hello,
from time to time I would like to use <span> tag for inline element styling, but it's not supported, so I have to use <div> and dirty tricks to get it done, but it's not the same: since DIV is not an inherent inline element, it's very hard to use it for blending something into the normal text flow (like math for example, see my hack on meta/mediawiki user guide/math using div instead of span).
maybe i'm wrong and there shouldn't be such styling on wikipedia pages (people against tags would say "it makes wikitext harder to read for nontech people"), so please share your opinion. I would like to use span, and would like to have it enabled in mediawiki pages. As far as I know it does not present cross-scripting or other vulnerabilities (I didn't explore this topic too deep though).
if nobody objects or convinces me that I'm on the road to hell I'll try to convince brion (which is probably the hardest part :)).
thanks, peter
But we want to get *away* from HTML towards wiki markup. It is better to write a few dozen lines of code and have some nice (and XHTML-unbreakable!) wiki markup, than have <span> all over the 'pedia - we'll never get it out again! Just look at the table markup - we have a working wikitable markup, and yet <table>s are still all over the place.
Magnus
David Friedland wrote:
I wish you the best of luck in your campaign. I've asked for <span> tags TWICE before and got shot down twice with the explanation that <span> tags make the wikitext harder to read (as though <div> tags were somehow better) and that there should be some universal styles for styling particular things, with wikiformatting tags to go along with them. I hope you can be more convincing than I was. Of course, said universal styles never got made and we go on, unable to make <span> tags, and with no real substitute other than the long-deprecated <font> tag and its friends. Enabling them requires changing exactly one line of code.
Sigh.
- David
Peter Gervai wrote:
hello,
from time to time I would like to use <span> tag for inline element styling, but it's not supported, so I have to use <div> and dirty tricks to get it done, but it's not the same: since DIV is not an inherent inline element, it's very hard to use it for blending something into the normal text flow (like math for example, see my hack on meta/mediawiki user guide/math using div instead of span).
maybe i'm wrong and there shouldn't be such styling on wikipedia pages (people against tags would say "it makes wikitext harder to read for nontech people"), so please share your opinion. I would like to use span, and would like to have it enabled in mediawiki pages. As far as I know it does not present cross-scripting or other vulnerabilities (I didn't explore this topic too deep though).
if nobody objects or convinces me that I'm on the road to hell I'll try to convince brion (which is probably the hardest part :)).
thanks, peter
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Apr 27, 2004, at 07:56, David Friedland wrote:
I wish you the best of luck in your campaign. I've asked for <span> tags TWICE before and got shot down twice with the explanation that <span> tags make the wikitext harder to read (as though <div> tags were somehow better)
<div> tags are *also* bad, as are <font> tags. They're already there, though, and asking for something to be *added* and asking for something to be *removed* are different types of requests.
The idea that a <span> with an inline style is "better" than <font> however is ludicrous; they are of precisely identical complexity (they must specify the same information, though using a different syntax) and equally lack semantic value. <span>'s only theoretical value is in creating semantically meaningful pseudo-tags via class specifications, something which is only useful if you also control the global style sheet.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com writes:
<span>'s only theoretical value is in creating semantically meaningful pseudo-tags via class specifications, something which is only useful if you also control the global style sheet.
Even withot control users can override upstream settings using "!important" (IIRC). Some believe in semantic markup, others do not.
Unfortunately, the WP suffers by the re-inventing wheels syndrom (instead of switching to XML/SGML now).
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Unfortunately, the WP suffers by the re-inventing wheels syndrom (instead of switching to XML/SGML now).
Unfortunately one type of wheel doesn't fit every car. XML is designed to be primarily machine-readable and unambiguous, human-readability and ease of authorship is a secondary consideration. I once read an article by Tim Berners-Lee (?), saying among other things that users ultimately should not see XML except in exceptional circumstances, and that automated tools will be created to author it.
Wiki markup, on the other hand, is primarily designed to be easy to create and easy to read. Concerns such as the ease of parser design and avoiding ambiguity are decidedly secondary.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
Unfortunately one type of wheel doesn't fit every car. XML is designed to be primarily machine-readable and unambiguous, human-readability and ease of authorship is a secondary consideration. I once read an article by Tim Berners-Lee (?), saying among other things that users ultimately should not see XML except in exceptional circumstances, and that automated tools will be created to author it.
Wiki markup, on the other hand, is primarily designed to be easy to create and easy to read. Concerns such as the ease of parser design and avoiding ambiguity are decidedly secondary.
I agree with this completely. Now, obviously we should be very careful about falling into any "reinventing the wheel" syndromes, or any "not invented here" syndromes, etc. But wiki markup serves a very different function from HTML or XML.
--Jimbo
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Wiki markup, on the other hand, is primarily designed to be easy to create and easy to read. Concerns such as the ease of parser design and avoiding ambiguity are decidedly secondary.
I agree with this completely. Now, obviously we should be very careful about falling into any "reinventing the wheel" syndromes, or any "not invented here" syndromes, etc. But wiki markup serves a very different function from HTML or XML.
To me, wiki markup is just another editor in front of the real content. I expect to see a wysiwyg editor one day as well, and I expect to see the contents stored in XML for ease of access and because databases will offer us more features that way.
"HDM" == Hr Daniel Mikkelsen daniel@copyleft.no writes:
HDM> To me, wiki markup is just another editor in front of the HDM> real content. I expect to see a wysiwyg editor one day as HDM> well, and I expect to see the contents stored in XML for ease HDM> of access and because databases will offer us more features HDM> that way.
I think one of the main principles of wiki is making wiki pages easily editable by anyone. Pages full of XML or HTML markup don't meet this requirement.
I think a WYSIWYG editor* should be part of MediaWiki 2.0. There's some discussion of the problems with it here:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG_editor
The main problem is that in-browser WYSIWYG editors produce HTML, which would mess things up for people who must or prefer to work with Wiki markup. We'd need to parse the HTML produced by WYSIWYG editors back into wiki markup for storage. I think Magnus's recent HTML-to-wiki converter may be a big step to making this work.
~ESP
* and an SVG whiteboard, too.
Evan Prodromou wrote:
The main problem is that in-browser WYSIWYG editors produce HTML, which would mess things up for people who must or prefer to work with Wiki markup. We'd need to parse the HTML produced by WYSIWYG editors back into wiki markup for storage. I think Magnus's recent HTML-to-wiki converter may be a big step to making this work.
Or program a WYSIWYG editor that produces Wiki markup.
Or introduce Mishoo to Wikipedia and make him turn his HTMLArea into a WikiArea: http://dynarch.com/mishoo/htmlarea.epl
"RN" == Ralesk Ne'vennoyx ralesk@livejournal.com writes:
Me> The main problem is that in-browser WYSIWYG editors produce Me> HTML,
RN> Or program a WYSIWYG editor that produces Wiki markup.
That's possible, but the current round of in-browser editors don't let you switch around the markup produced. They make HTML, period.
RN> Or introduce Mishoo to Wikipedia and make him turn his RN> HTMLArea into a WikiArea: RN> http://dynarch.com/mishoo/htmlarea.epl
HtmlArea is one of my favorites, since it smoothes over the differences between Mozilla's and IE's in-browser editors. I think the newer epoZ does a good job, too.
There's a lot of ways this could work; I'm thinking it's long-term for now, though.
~ESP
"PG" == Peter Gervai grin@tolna.net writes:
PG> maybe i'm wrong and there shouldn't be such styling on PG> wikipedia pages (people against tags would say "it makes PG> wikitext harder to read for nontech people"), so please share PG> your opinion.
My opinion is that they're absolutely right. Wikis aren't supposed to be about fancy HTML formatting.
The information payload in pixel-twiddling is remarkably low. It might be worthwhile to concentrate on, say, making an encyclopedia instead.
~ESP
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org