Well, about the edit preview, don't worry about. Our Parser is complicated enough that anything like that isn't happening soon.
It already has: http://wikiwyg.org/wysi/
Yes, but for corner case stuff its output differs from MediaWiki. In other words, what you see is not always what you're going to get. For example:
* "JavaScript" renders as that on WikiWSY, but renders as "JavaScript" on MediaWiki.
* "&60;" renders on the Parser as "&60;", but on WikiWSY it doesn't show up.
* Don't get the ISBN / RFC / PubMed autolinking (e.g. "ISBN 1903")
* Nested links render differently - e.g. "[[a link[[b]]]]" renders like "[[a link<href>b</href>]]" on MediaWiki, but like "<href>a link</href>" on WikiWSY (drops the "b").
* a line with just "'''a" renders as <bold>a</bold> on MediaWiki, but as "a" (no bold) on WikiWSY.
* "{|{|\nx" renders as blank on WikiWSY, but shows an "x" on MediaWiki.
* "<pre>aaa</pre><nowiki>xxxx</nowiki>" renders as that string on WikiWSY, but shows as "aaa\nxxxxx" on MediaWiki.
But I do think WikiWSY is impressive. Getting something client-side that matches the server-side Parser for core functionality is very hard. Getting something that's "quirk-compatible" for the less common stuff is very very hard (and would probably require literally porting Parser.php from PHP to JavaScript; and then keeping it updated as Parser.php changed - lots & lots & lots of work; it could even be easier to write a custom PHP-to-JavaScript "compiler" to do it automatically).
All the best, Nick.
On 7/26/06, Nick Jenkins nickpj@gmail.com wrote:
But I do think WikiWSY is impressive. Getting something client-side that matches the server-side Parser for core functionality is very hard. Getting something that's "quirk-compatible" for the less common stuff is very very hard (and would probably require literally porting Parser.php from PHP to JavaScript; and then keeping it updated as Parser.php changed - lots & lots & lots of work; it could even be easier to write a custom PHP-to-JavaScript "compiler" to do it automatically).
Google Web Toolkit has a Java->JavaScript compiler in it. Too bad MediaWiki isn't Java-based! But (if I was doing it) I'd rather write a clone in something like Java that could be easily understood & reported than in a language like JavaScript that's maybe not so intuitive to outsiders.
I wonder how difficult it would be to reduce the parser to a ruleset that could be "executed" on a more minimal VM/core. Sounds like a good topic for a PhD to be honest. :P
On 7/26/06, Ben Garney beng@garagegames.com wrote:
Too bad MediaWiki isn't Java-based!
*mboverload stabs Ben repeatedly in the chest*
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 08:53:23PM -0700, mboverload wrote:
On 7/26/06, Ben Garney beng@garagegames.com wrote:
Too bad MediaWiki isn't Java-based!
*mboverload stabs Ben repeatedly in the chest*
/me hands mboverload more scissors, knives, and sharpened chopsticks to continue the good work.
On 7/26/06, Chad Perrin perrin@apotheon.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 08:53:23PM -0700, mboverload wrote:
On 7/26/06, Ben Garney beng@garagegames.com wrote:
Too bad MediaWiki isn't Java-based!
*mboverload stabs Ben repeatedly in the chest*
/me hands mboverload more scissors, knives, and sharpened chopsticks to continue the good work.
Love you guys, too. :)
I'm not saying MW should switch languages or that Java is a good choice of language for this context. I'm simply noting that if MW used Java, then we could slap the parser classes in GWT and get a nice portabe JavaScript version of it.
Please don't construe this statement as a veiled snipe at PHP (or Java, or any other language). It's just an observation of fact.
Ok - I did state one opinion... I'd rather write a big app in Java then JavaScript. If you take issue w/ that you're welcome to take it offlist and mail me privately, but let's do try to keep things professional and on-topic on _this_ list. :)
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:00:30PM -0700, Ben Garney wrote:
On 7/26/06, Chad Perrin perrin@apotheon.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 08:53:23PM -0700, mboverload wrote:
On 7/26/06, Ben Garney beng@garagegames.com wrote:
Too bad MediaWiki isn't Java-based!
*mboverload stabs Ben repeatedly in the chest*
/me hands mboverload more scissors, knives, and sharpened chopsticks to continue the good work.
Love you guys, too. :)
Good, it's mutual!
Please don't construe this statement as a veiled snipe at PHP (or Java, or any other language). It's just an observation of fact.
I should help stab someone for choosing PHP, too, for that matter -- but we work with what we've got.
Just to be clear in the future: In 2006, when you stabbed someone over the internet for promoting Java...that was a joke.
Yeah.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:05:26PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 08:53:23PM -0700, mboverload wrote:
On 7/26/06, Ben Garney beng@garagegames.com wrote:
Too bad MediaWiki isn't Java-based!
*mboverload stabs Ben repeatedly in the chest*
/me hands mboverload more scissors, knives, and sharpened chopsticks to continue the good work.
Anyone got some more popcorn?
Cheers, -- jra
On Wed, 2006-26-07 at 20:37 -0700, Ben Garney wrote:
Too bad MediaWiki isn't Java-based!
It's probably worth mentioning that there's a new project to create a MediaWiki-workalike engine that runs in a Java Servlets container. It's called JAMWiki, and it's here:
I've played around with it a little and, while it's definitely Not There Yet, it's way ahead of 80% of existing Wiki engines. I'm going to be keeping an eye on it.
~Evan
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org