I've analyzed Wikipedia's HTML code for representing geographical coordinates. The current code is verbose and does not support the Geo microformat correctly. Three alternatives, differing on functionality and code size, are suggested as replacements:
http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/geo/
Alternative 1, which is comptible with Wikipedia's current syntax for personalized presentation, reduces the number of elements from 14 to 10. Alternative 2, which uses CSS generated content to achieve personalized presentations, reduces the number of elments from 14 to 5 and the code size from 798 to 248 bytes.
Cheers,
-h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
http://www.wikiwix.com/?home=&map=true&lang=fr
----- Original Message ----- From: "Håkon Wium Lie" howcome@opera.com To: "Wikimedia developers" wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:24 PM Subject: [Wikitech-l] A proposal to simplify and improve geo markup inWikipedia
I've analyzed Wikipedia's HTML code for representing geographical coordinates. The current code is verbose and does not support the Geo microformat correctly. Three alternatives, differing on functionality and code size, are suggested as replacements:
http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/geo/
Alternative 1, which is comptible with Wikipedia's current syntax for personalized presentation, reduces the number of elements from 14 to 10. Alternative 2, which uses CSS generated content to achieve personalized presentations, reduces the number of elments from 14 to 5 and the code size from 798 to 248 bytes.
Cheers,
-h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Monday 06 April 2009 04:31:39 pm Pascal Martin wrote:
How does this big blue rectangle (Konqueror) relate to the OP?
Alternative 1, which is comptible with Wikipedia's current syntax for personalized presentation, reduces the number of elements from 14 to
Last time I checked the <abbr> element was not on the permitted list of html element usable in wikitext. Has that changed? When?
Please have a look at how the template is fully rewritten in Russian Wikipedia [1] and make your suggestions. The template parameters seem to be compatible, so the suggestion may be to copy the infrastructure from ruwiki and make improvements there.
— Kalan
Kalan wrote:
Please have a look at how the template is fully rewritten in Russian Wikipedia [1] and make your suggestions. The template parameters seem to be compatible, so the suggestion may be to copy the infrastructure from ruwiki and make improvements there.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Håkon, did you only look at the English Wikipedia? Different languages have different coordinate templates. When I ask around, the Germans are convinced that their new template is the best, but they can't give a short summary of why this is so.
I have only looked at the English version. Thanks for the pointers, I will review the geo markup in Russian and German and report back.
Cheers,
-h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
I've analyzed Wikipedia's HTML code for representing geographical coordinates. The current code is verbose and does not support the Geo microformat correctly. Three alternatives, differing on functionality and code size, are suggested as replacements:
http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/geo/
Alternative 1, which is comptible with Wikipedia's current syntax for personalized presentation, reduces the number of elements from 14 to 10. Alternative 2, which uses CSS generated content to achieve personalized presentations, reduces the number of elments from 14 to 5 and the code size from 798 to 248 bytes.
This fits in with other approaches to geographic information, and I suggest we all use the new maps-l mailing list for all of this.
1) More articles ought to have coordinates, in all languages of Wikipedia. Is this also relevant to Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wikiquote?
2) We need some quality assurance, to make sure we have the right coordinates for each place. Making it easier for normal users to verify and update coordinates would be helpful. Usability project?
3) Coordinates can now be specified in many different ways, but we ought to have fewer, more standardized ways (templates).
4) The output of the templates should be as useful as possible: * link to the GeoHack page, * geo microformats, * <span class> markup that can be modified by personal CSS/Javascript, * in the future also inline maps from OpenStreetMap.
Could we write a specification for what a coordinate template should be able to handle? Could someone write a history of how Wikipedia's coordinate templates have evolved over the years?
Håkon, did you only look at the English Wikipedia? Different languages have different coordinate templates. When I ask around, the Germans are convinced that their new template is the best, but they can't give a short summary of why this is so.
2009/4/7 Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se:
Håkon, did you only look at the English Wikipedia? Different languages have different coordinate templates. When I ask around, the Germans are convinced that their new template is the best, but they can't give a short summary of why this is so.
Yes. It's useful and important in these markup refactorings to take note of which bits are
* the MediaWiki software and extensions * [[MediaWiki:]] space messages * template markup
The first is the software, the third is the local wiki, the second is a mix of both (defaults in the software and local overrides).
All are worth refactoring, but you have to convince different people it's a good idea :-)
- d.
Also sprach David Gerard:
It's useful and important in these markup refactorings to take note of which bits are
- the MediaWiki software and extensions
- [[MediaWiki:]] space messages
- template markup
The first is the software, the third is the local wiki, the second is a mix of both (defaults in the software and local overrides).
All are worth refactoring, but you have to convince different people it's a good idea :-)
Noted. So far, I've taken the "black box" approach to Wikipedia's markup: an external perspective allows me to optimize code without having to consider organizational constraints inside the black box. Also, I don't really know how the internal systems work, and the braces in the template code scare me. And what do you mean by "space messages"?
In due course, I hope to find some internal collaborators who will join me in the quest :-)
Cheers,
-h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
2009/4/7 Håkon Wium Lie howcome@opera.com:
Also, I don't really know how the internal systems work, and the braces in the template code scare me.
They scare everyone. The ParserFunctions syntax is evil. (This turns out to be a feature, as only those geeky enough to wrangle with it do so, giving the users a reasonably simple interface to use the templates themselves.) You could probably write Emacs in it. Someone probably has.
And what do you mean by "space messages"?
Sorry, I mean as in page namespaces - there's article space (e.g. [[Opera (software)]]), there's user space (e.g. [[User:David Gerard]]), there's project space (e.g. [[Wikipedia:WTF]]), there's a few others ... each has a Talk: space associated with it for discussion.
One of them is MediaWiki: space, which is where a lot of the interface is set. This is very easy to customise, as any administrator on a wiki can change it. See the sidebar on English Wikipedia? Its contents are set at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki%3ASidebar .
You should set up a MediaWiki installation and play with it, it's very easy to get started with :-)
- d.
On 4/7/09 1:58 PM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
Also sprach David Gerard:
All are worth refactoring, but you have to convince different people it's a good idea :-)
Noted. So far, I've taken the "black box" approach to Wikipedia's markup: an external perspective allows me to optimize code without having to consider organizational constraints inside the black box. Also, I don't really know how the internal systems work,
I just want to point out this is a *totally valid* and *very valuable* approach -- sometimes knowing that something would be hard or impossible to do with the current internals is a needed kick in the pants to refactor something.
and the braces in the template code scare me.
Me too. ;)
-- brion
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
I just want to point out this is a *totally valid* and *very valuable* approach -- sometimes knowing that something would be hard or impossible to do with the current internals is a needed kick in the pants to refactor something.
Yup. I'd never have thought of moving classes to the <a>, having been so long indoctrinated into "it's not possible to use literal <a>s in wikimarkup". It's a valuable idea. :)
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 05:53, Aryeh Gregor Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
Yup. I'd never have thought of moving classes to the <a>, having been so long indoctrinated into "it's not possible to use literal <a>s in wikimarkup". It's a valuable idea. :)
Oh yeah. We definitely have to reconsider [[link]]s syntax to make it more like [[File:]]s one — that wouldn’t be hard, right?
— Kalan
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org