Moin,
On Saturday 03 June 2006 11:50, Brion Vibber wrote:
I'm in the process of rewriting the old Sanitizer::removeHTMLTags to work much better. The new code properly closes implied end-tags and obeys some additional HTML rules about what can go where.
In-progress patches posted at: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5497
Before I finish this up, though, it would be good if we can agree on how to handle a few things. ** HTML across template boundaries
[snip]
However the current system allows the same thing to work with wiki tables (eg {|class="fooba") in either mode. I'm pretty sure at least the latter are in fairly common use on Wikipedia.
So we either need to decide to Kill Them All, or accept the sacrifice for compatibility.
It is very convient to be able to create templates that start tables with a lot of predefiened markup, so users can just say:
{{start-table-for-specific-purpose-foo}}
instead of creatig manually bordersizes etc. It also makes mass-changing tables easier.
However, I am not sure you really need the <table> tag for this. Raw HTML shouldn't be nec. except in very limited circumstances. So what can table do that "{| |}" can't and can't we teach the wiki code these things and finally kill normal HTML tables altogether?
** Mixing of HTML and wiki tables
Running tests on pages from French Wikipedia, I found a cute bugger that does something like this:
{|
<caption>A table caption</caption>
|- |blah |}
Since tables haven't been replaced in the output yet, this <caption> is in a <body> context as far as the HTML normalizer sees and it fails. But the old code let it through, in both tidy and non-tidy mode.
While this kind of admixture looks *supremely ugly* to me, do we have any reason to disallow it?
Three: Uglyness, cleanliness, simplicity. KISS. Can we please kill HTML tables? Now? :)
Should we think of the wiki table syntax as just a shortcut/transformation to HTML table tags, or should they be entirely separate entities?
I think the wiki syntax should be the norm.
My € 0.02,
Tels