Hi.
Someone asked me about LiquidThreads and I pointed them to
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/LiquidThreads_3.0 only to realize that the
current timeline on that page reads "August 2011".
Is there an updated status for LiquidThreads? I vaguely recall some e-mail
saying it wasn't going to be a priority in 2012, but I don't really
remember. If someone knows and could update this list or that page, that'd
be awesome.
MZMcBride
This is a (admittedly long and elaborate) question, not a proposal. I ask
it in order to learn whether anyone has given it or something like it
some thought.
Has anyone thought of creating MW 2.0? I mean by this, completely
rewriting the application in a way that may make it incompatible with MW
1.x.y.
Pros
----
* Improving the application architecture
* Utilizing more client side resources, thereby reducing the server side
resource requirements.
* Clean up and improve existing services.
Cons
----
* Rewrites of major applications normally fail because they become overly
ambitious.
Some possible ways MW 2.0 might improve MW 1.x.y
Change the parser
-----------------
* Get rid of mediawiki markup and move to html with embedded macros that
are processed client side.
* Move extension processing client side.
* Replace templates with a cleaner macro-based language (but, KISS).
Pros
----
* Reduce server side resource requirements, thereby reducing server side
costs. Server side becomes mostly database manipulation.
* Make use of the far larger aggregate resources available on client side
(many more client machines than server machines).
* With macro processing client side, debates about enhancements to parser
extensions that require more processing shift to looking at client side.
* Allows development of a parser driven by well-defined grammar.
Cons
----
* Unclear whether it is possible to move all or most parser processing to
client side.
* Would need a (probably large and complex) transition application that
translates mediawiki markup into new grammar.
* Since not all clients may have the resources to expand macros and do
other client side processing in a timely manner, may need to provide
server side surrogate processing based on either user selectable (e.g.,
preferences) choice or automatic discovery.
* Need to select client side processing engine (e.g., Javascript, Java),
which may lead to major developer fighting.
Clean up security architecture
------------------------------
* Support per page permissions, ala' Unix file system model.
* Integrate authentication with emerging global services (e.g., OpenID)
without use of extensions.
* Move group membership definition out of LocalSettings into database
table.
Pros
----
* Chance to think through security requirements and craft clean solution.
* Offload most authentication processing and login data protection to
service providers that more sharply focus on its requirements.
* Some customers have expressed interest in per page permissions.
Cons
----
* Changing security architectures is a notoriously difficult objective.
Most attempts lead to bloated solutions that never work in practice.
* Some developers oppose per page permissions.
* Would need to develop WMF standards that authentication providers must
meet before accepting them for WMF project login.
This is sufficient to illustrate the direction of my curiosity, but there
are other things that MW 2.0 could do that might be discussed, such as:
* Change the page history model. When page is flagged stable, subsequent
page changes occur to new draft page. Provide link to draft page on
stable page.
* Think through how to support multiple db backends so application
development doesn't continually break this support.
--
-- Dan Nessett
Why do email notifications from Wikipedia have the sender as
"MediaWiki Mail"? Most Wikipedia users probably don't know what
"MediaWiki" is. I suggest it be changed to "Wikipedia" or "Wikipedia
notifications" or something like that.
Hello All,
I am planning to develop a new Open Source project keeping mediawiki as the
baseline. I wonder how the liciening policy of mediawiki will affect my
intention. Could somebody help me on whether it is possible to develop my
own app using mediawiki and distribute it as an opensource project?
Thanks,
Regards,
Sajith Vimukthi Weerakoon,
T .P No : ++94-716102392
++94-727102392
The following JavaScript works fine in MediaWiki 1.17.1, when placed into a ResourceLoader-loaded module, producing an alert box:
addHandler(window, 'load', function() {
alert('hello');
});
However, the same code does not seem to run in MediaWiki 1.18.0 in Internet Explorer 8: no alert box is displayed. (It still works in Firefox though.)
Anybody know why?
I have confirmed, using IE Developer Tools, that window.addHandler is defined in IE after the page loads, by typing "addHandler.toString()" in the console:
>>addHandler.toString()
"function(element,attach,handler){if(element.addEventListener){element.addEventListener(attach,handler,false);}else if(element.attachEvent){element.attachEvent('on'+attach,handler);}}"
Thanks,
DanB
A test page for the new VIPS image scaler is now available:
https://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:VipsTest
You can give it names of images from Commons and it will show a
comparison with a moving divider, with the thumbnail from ImageMagick
on the left, and the one from VIPS on the right.
I'll explain what you would expect to see when using this tool:
For JPEG images, using a sharpening radius of 0.8 will make the VIPS
result roughly match the ImageMagick result, as long as the thumbnail
is reduced to less than 85% of the original width. With not enough
sharpening, the resulting image looks blurry. With too much
sharpening, contrast in fine detail will be unrealistically enhanced
and high-contrast borders will develop "halos".
Above about 50% reduction factor, the block average introduces
artifacts in fine detail, so enabling the "bilinear" option will look
better, and will more closely match ImageMagick. But if the bilinear
option is used with a reduction factor much smaller than that, severe
artifacts will be seen in areas of contrasting fine detail.
At small reduction factors, the main difference between ImageMagick
and VIPS is that VIPS uses a simple block average whereas ImageMagick
uses a more complex windowing function. This leads to minor
differences in fine detail.
What we're looking for out of this test is:
* Confirmation that VIPS is not completely failing fpr some class of
images.
* Suggestions for parameter values (sharpening, bilinear) for various
source and destination sizes. VipsScaler allows these parameters to be
configured depending on source size and reduction factor.
-- Tim Starling
I've reverted your changes. See
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_activity.cgi?id=156 for an example.
First, I agree that the wider communities interest in an issue should
affect the importance of the issue.
However, if the you feel like the developer community isn't being
responsive enough to a particular bug, then there are more effective
ways to get action on the bug than bumping up the "Priority" field on
bugs. Doing so will only lead to further frustration on your part.
We use that field to allocate our scarce resources
(https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Bugzilla_usage) and
direct volunteer developers when they request it. Mass changes like the
ones you made should be discussed on wikitech-l and the consensus of the
developer community should be respected.
Thank you,
Mark.
--
Mark A. Hershberger
Bugmeister
Wikimedia Foundation
mhershberger(a)wikimedia.org
Hello,
I tried last days to mass-translate blog posts of the Foundation’s blog,
aiming at building a parallel blog in French with the same posts,
translated [1]. Some people are interested in regularly translating blog
posts. So my question is: is it possible to make the Foundation’s blog
multilingual?
I know it isn’t easy because there is no out-of-the-box such feature and
the plugins generally are either outdated either very specific.
Fortunately the plugin "Multilingual Press" [2] seems to be quite the
exact feature, it uses the multisite feature of Wordpress to create other
linguistic versions, about the same as the interlingual links on
MediaWiki. This plugin seems quite new, but quite well-thought.
So: possible? difficult? thoughts?
NB: this is a preliminary question, it should be discussed with
communication-related people after.
~ Seb35 [^_^]
[1] http://eiximenis.wikimedia.org/Y0XXieaPNS
[2] http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/multilingual-press/
These things should be caught before the public sees them
$ w3m -dump 'http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/王力_(语言学家)'|grep error
緝code error!（5人名中都有「心」字）。
$ w3m -dump 'http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/王力_(语言学家)?action=raw'|grep 人名中都有
）、[[王缉慈]]（女）、[[王缉思]]、[[王缉憲|王缉-{zh-hans:憲;}-]]（5人名中都有「
Maybe templates should 'also report to their master' any time they
produce a 'code error'... if indeed a template is involved.