I'm going ahead with Modulo:Pg and Modulo:Dati/...  idea. A test p.indice function into :it:s:Modulo:Dati now builds a nice list of links to subpages into any supported ns0 page - simply browsing one of Modulo/Dati:.... tables and selecting cap objects which are subpages of the calling page and adding a little bit of wiki code. 

But I found a problem while trying to emulate fully our it.source, powerful tl|Testo, currently used to build links to subpages. A transclusion call by #lst tag is not considered "server expensive", while a Lua emulation of a transclusion call by mw.title.new() (to retrieve its content and select text into a section) is a server expensive function. Is there some other method to emulate #lst in Lua using not expensive server functions?


2013/6/8 billinghurst <billinghurst@gmail.com>
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 14:44:06 +0200, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84@gmail.com>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM, billinghurst <billinghurst@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I don't agree that it should be fully automated by any stretch of the
>> imagination.  I can see that it is an option that some may wish to use,
>> but
>> I dislike the limitations, and do not see it working as the only means
>> use.
> Well, I think that the bot/Lua/extension/whatever could show to the user
> window with the structure of the book as it would be created.
> The user could change some things, or Cancel the automatic transclusion.
> I don't know: to me, avoiding the burden of taking care of different
> namesapces, with diffirent templates needed and strange tags (eg
> should be an aim for us, if we want the layman to understand Wikisource
> contribute.
> I myself can't upload and create a whole book from the scan to the ns0
> transclusion without mistakes or forgetting important things.
> Wikisource *is* difficult,
> Too much, IMHO.
> Aubrey

I am not saying that it isn't part of the choice, I am just saying that it
should not be enforced. I am explaining choice, not commenting on the
development of the proposed tool and its availability. At a point of time,
I may use it. Of course you make mistakes, we all do, and they are not just
in the <pages> stuff.  I make more mistakes in Page: ns than I do in main.
I see mistakes in the published books, including mistakes in ToC. Humans
while they make mistakes, also are able to error resolve.

English Wikisource has more components in its headers, and is able to
adapt its {{header}} components more dynamically.  Having the ability to
tweak enables presentation to how it suits a work, and its readibility; to
this point of time, I find the automated process too restricting.

Regards, Billinghurst

Wikisource-l mailing list