On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:
Specifying wikitext-html conversion sounds like a MediaWiki 2.0 type of project (ie. wouldn't expect it to happen in this decade), and even then
it
would not fully solve the problem[...]
You seem to be suggesting that
- Specifying wikitext-html conversion is really hard
- It's not a silver bullet (i.e. it doesn't "fully solve the problem")
- HTML storage looks more like a silver bullet, and is cheaper
- Therefore, a specification is not really worth doing, or if it is,
it's really low priority
Is that an accurate way of paraphrasing your email?
Yes. The main problem with specifying wikitext-to-html is that extensions get to extend it in arbitrary ways; e.g. the specification for Scribunto would have to include the whole Lua compiler semantics.
Do you believe that declaring "the implementation is the spec" is a sustainable way of encouraging contribution to our projects?
Rob