Steve Bennett wrote:
Heh, ok - didn't notice that. Presume that they had actually meant to give two slightly different ISBN's, such as for two different editions of the same book.
two diferent editions of the same book always have a different ISBN number.
the ISBN number is meant to distinguish among different book in commerce. Since commercially two different editions of the same book are a different thing, they have a different ISBN.
The hypens are use to separate the different parts of the number (language, editor, book_id, checksum). The fild dimensions are not fixed. By the way since the last digit may also be an X (the checksum is done module 11), it is not strictly a number.
Any File
On 8/8/06, Any File anysomefile@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Heh, ok - didn't notice that. Presume that they had actually meant to give two slightly different ISBN's, such as for two different editions of the same book.
two diferent editions of the same book always have a different ISBN number.
the ISBN number is meant to distinguish among different book in commerce. Since commercially two different editions of the same book are a different thing, they have a different ISBN.
Right, what I was trying to get at, was that an editor might want to do something like this:
* Bill Smith: Green grapes (ISBN 123456789, 1457589 and 131456032) to indicate three different possible ISBN's for the same book. You'd need to manually link (or repeat the word ISBN) to make those second two actually link.
Btw someone asked about other magic words like ISBN's - patent numbers might be an example.
The hypens are use to separate the different parts of the number (language, editor, book_id, checksum). The fild dimensions are not fixed. By the way since the last digit may also be an X (the checksum is done module 11), it is not strictly a number.
Oh, cool.
Steve
On 8/8/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Btw someone asked about other magic words like ISBN's - patent numbers might be an example.
RFCs and PMIDs are supported.
On 8/9/06, Simetrical Simetrical+wikitech@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Btw someone asked about other magic words like ISBN's - patent numbers might be an example.
RFCs and PMIDs are supported.
Ah, so I see. Is all this documented anywhere?
Steve
RFCs and PMIDs are supported.
Ah, so I see. Is all this documented anywhere?
Do you mean formally or informally ?
If you mean informally, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PMID http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ISBN (couldn't see one for RFC, as [[WP:RFC]] is about a Wikipedia process).
If you mean formally, then the answer I think is no. (In practice this means that the corner-case behaviour can fluctuate as the implementation changes - E.g. up until 2 days ago "ISBN ----" rendered as "<p>ISBN</p>", and now it renders basically as "<a href='Special:Booksources'>ISBN ----</a>"). If you want this level of detail though the source seems to the best reference: http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/includes/Parser.php?v... Search for "doMagicLinks" and "magicLinkCallback".
All the best, Nick.
On 8/9/06, Nick Jenkins nickpj@gmail.com wrote:
RFCs and PMIDs are supported.
Ah, so I see. Is all this documented anywhere?
Do you mean formally or informally ?
If you mean informally, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PMID http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ISBN (couldn't see one for RFC, as [[WP:RFC]] is about a Wikipedia process).
Oh, actually what I basically meant was, "where would I find a comprehensive list of all these magic words?". The mediawiki page for magic words doesn't seem to mention any of these.
Thanks for the info though.
Steve
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Jenkins" nickpj@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia developers" wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Sent: 09 August 2006 08:50 Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Interesting behaviour of "ISBN" magic word
RFCs and PMIDs are supported.
Ah, so I see. Is all this documented anywhere?
Do you mean formally or informally ?
If you mean informally, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PMID http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ISBN (couldn't see one for RFC, as [[WP:RFC]] is about a Wikipedia process).
Also:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:ISBN http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:RFC http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Markup_spec/BNF/Magic_links
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
On 8/9/06, HappyDog wikilist@kennel17.co.uk wrote:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:ISBN http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:RFC http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Markup_spec/BNF/Magic_links
Ok, I don't really get the organisation of the MediaWiki's help, but it seems that the only documentation on "magic words" is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Magic_words
(couldn't find anything at mediawiki.org)
However, that doc doesn't refer to "magic links". And neither seems to refer to the obivous fact that http:// gets converted into an external link...
Some links between these documentations would be good. I'm not sure if I can just directly edit those pages?
Steve
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia developers" wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Sent: 09 August 2006 16:18 Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Interesting behaviour of "ISBN" magic word
On 8/9/06, HappyDog wikilist@kennel17.co.uk wrote:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:ISBN http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:RFC http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Markup_spec/BNF/Magic_links
Ok, I don't really get the organisation of the MediaWiki's help, but it seems that the only documentation on "magic words" is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Magic_words
(couldn't find anything at mediawiki.org)
However, that doc doesn't refer to "magic links". And neither seems to refer to the obivous fact that http:// gets converted into an external link...
Some links between these documentations would be good. I'm not sure if I can just directly edit those pages?
Steve
True - the documentation is in quite a state at the moment. There is a move to sort out the Mediawiki docs, and to consolidate everything at mediawiki.org, but it is a slow process and so far there are not many people participating. Any help is always appreciated, so the short answer is yes - you can directly edit those pages, and it would be appreciated.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
On 8/9/06, HappyDog wikilist@kennel17.co.uk wrote:
True - the documentation is in quite a state at the moment. There is a move to sort out the Mediawiki docs, and to consolidate everything at mediawiki.org, but it is a slow process and so far there are not many people participating. Any help is always appreciated, so the short answer is yes - you can directly edit those pages, and it would be appreciated.
Ok, so what's the current situation, and what's the goal? All mediawiki doc should be at mediawiki.org? What's where atm?
Steve
On 8/9/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, actually what I basically meant was, "where would I find a comprehensive list of all these magic words?".
You have it: RFC, PMID, ISBN.
On 8/9/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, so what's the current situation, and what's the goal? All mediawiki doc should be at mediawiki.org? What's where atm?
Current situation: Perpetual mess, as with most open-source projects, because documentation isn't enforced and coding is much more fun than documenting.
Goal: A reasonably up-to-date overview of all MediaWiki's features in some sensible format, at mediawiki.org, some released into the public domain and packaged with new installations, more advanced stuff GFDLd and kept at mediawiki.org, in as many languages as possible.
What's where: Lots of random stuff at Meta under the GFDL, which is apparently frowned upon because it restricts distribution and whatnot. Some stuff accumulating at mediawiki.org. Lots of more arcane details in comments in the code. All the rest implicit in the code itself. Behavior changing on a daily basis.
See also: Mediazilla bug #1, filed two years ago almost to the day, at the migration of bug tracking from Sourceforge. http://bugs.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1
From: "Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com
On 8/9/06, HappyDog wikilist@kennel17.co.uk wrote:
True - the documentation is in quite a state at the moment. There is a
move
to sort out the Mediawiki docs, and to consolidate everything at mediawiki.org, but it is a slow process and so far there are not many
people
participating. Any help is always appreciated, so the short answer is
yes -
you can directly edit those pages, and it would be appreciated.
Ok, so what's the current situation, and what's the goal? All mediawiki doc should be at mediawiki.org? What's where atm?
Yes, in the long term. There is a project aimed at transferring content about the software from meta to MW, making MW a comprehensive resource for all information about the software (at least, all information provided by the foundation). This is located at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:MetaProject_to_transfer_content_to_Media Wiki.org, however there has been little action regarding this yet and there are still a lot of things to be worked out before a proper move can be undertaken.
Additionally, there are issues that need resolving about the structure of MW.org, which I have added to a new page at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Current_issues.
So, in short, SOME documentation is at meta, SOME documentation is at MW.org, and there are various other places where bits of useful information have been scattered. Additionally, there is currently little consistency about where within either site (and particularly at MW) this information is located and how it is structured...
A bit of a mess, really!
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
On 8/9/06, Any File anysomefile@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Heh, ok - didn't notice that. Presume that they had actually meant to give two slightly different ISBN's, such as for two different editions of the same book.
two diferent editions of the same book always have a different ISBN number.
the ISBN number is meant to distinguish among different book in commerce. Since commercially two different editions of the same book are a different thing, they have a different ISBN.
This is how ISBNs are expected to work. But those of us who have been cataloguing our books on http://librarything.com have come to learn that publishers are a little slack in this area and do in fact use one ISBN for more than one edition more often than you might expect. Rarely we have even found the same ISBN on different books I believe.
Andrew Dunbar.
The hypens are use to separate the different parts of the number (language, editor, book_id, checksum). The fild dimensions are not fixed. By the way since the last digit may also be an X (the checksum is done module 11), it is not strictly a number.
Any File _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org