I don't think anyone is suggesting removing or even moving Monobook. I think we are more talking about assigning effort more proportionally to preference of users. Cologne Blue is not the clear favorite of any group of users that we know of.
- Trevor
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 March 2014 15:21, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
It might be easier to revamp the skin system if there were fewer skins
to
port.
Touché.
So.. so 2 questions
- would anyone have any objections to moving it out of core and into
its own extension? 2) would anyone have any objections for turning it off on Wikimedia wikis
FWIW, having a single skin in core would actually be a good thing for skin development. Currently writing a skin outside core is difficult - I found this in the development of the mobile skin. Having a leaner codebase in core would actually encourage better organisation to make things. skinStyles is a great example - if your skin is not in core, you can't use it.
Speaking from a user perspective, having all of 4 skins available (really? 4? That's a lot?) does make a difference in differentiating which nearly-identical wikis one is working on, particularly if one or more of the wikis involved are non-public ones. Aside from Vector and Monobook, though, I don't see a reason why they can't be extensions, as long as they're still in the preference lists.
I strongly urge maintaining Monobook exactly the way that Vector is maintained: it's the clear favourite of the most active users, it's still faster after years of improving Vector, and it handles a lot of accessibility issues much better than Vector (particularly for the visually impaired, according to those editors I know who have to deal with this).
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l