On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would reap huge rewards in the safety and effectiveness of automated tools - authors of tools like AWB have just as much trouble making software handle the corner cases in wikitext markup as new editors have understanding it.
In every discussion so far, throwing out wikitext and replacing it with something that isn't a crawling horror has been considered a non-starter, given ten years and terabytes of legacy wikitext.
If you think you can swing throwing out wikitext and barring the actual code from human editing - XML is not safely human editable in any circumstances - then good luck to you, but I don't like your chances.
- d.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:43 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would reap huge rewards in the safety and effectiveness of automated tools - authors of tools like AWB have just as much trouble making software handle the corner cases in wikitext markup as new editors have understanding it.
In every discussion so far, throwing out wikitext and replacing it with something that isn't a crawling horror has been considered a non-starter, given ten years and terabytes of legacy wikitext.
If you think you can swing throwing out wikitext and barring the actual code from human editing - XML is not safely human editable in any circumstances - then good luck to you, but I don't like your chances.
That is true - "We can't do away with Wikitext" always been the intermediate conclusion (in between "My god, we need to do something about this problem" and "This is hopeless, we give up again").
Perhaps it's time to start some exercises in noneuclidian Wiki development, and just assume the opposite and see what happens.
That is true - "We can't do away with Wikitext" always been the intermediate conclusion (in between "My god, we need to do something about this problem" and "This is hopeless, we give up again").
between wikitext and WYSISWYG is a simple solution of colourizing text like for hundreds of programing (and otehr) languages formats in a simple text editor. This is not a rocket science but we still do not have it :(
masti
masti wrote:
That is true - "We can't do away with Wikitext" always been the intermediate conclusion (in between "My god, we need to do something about this problem" and "This is hopeless, we give up again").
between wikitext and WYSISWYG is a simple solution of colourizing text like for hundreds of programing (and otehr) languages formats in a simple text editor. This is not a rocket science but we still do not have it :(
masti
Have you tried wikiEd ?
On 12/31/2010 01:19 AM, Platonides wrote:
masti wrote:
That is true - "We can't do away with Wikitext" always been the intermediate conclusion (in between "My god, we need to do something about this problem" and "This is hopeless, we give up again").
between wikitext and WYSISWYG is a simple solution of colourizing text like for hundreds of programing (and otehr) languages formats in a simple text editor. This is not a rocket science but we still do not have it :(
masti
Have you tried wikiEd ?
yes :(
why not have this functionality in wikiedit window?
masti (2010-12-31 01:33):
On 12/31/2010 01:19 AM, Platonides wrote:
masti wrote:
That is true - "We can't do away with Wikitext" always been the intermediate conclusion (in between "My god, we need to do something about this problem" and "This is hopeless, we give up again").
between wikitext and WYSISWYG is a simple solution of colourizing text like for hundreds of programing (and otehr) languages formats in a simple text editor. This is not a rocket science but we still do not have it :(
masti
Have you tried wikiEd ?
yes :(
why not have this functionality in wikiedit window?
Because wikEd is wicked ;-) and spoils simple editor window so that many other scripts have problems using it. Also probably because it's not really helpful for all users to work with and certainly is making your computer work slower.
Regards, Nux.
masti wrote:
That is true - "We can't do away with Wikitext" always been the intermediate conclusion (in between "My god, we need to do something about this problem" and "This is hopeless, we give up again").
between wikitext and WYSISWYG is a simple solution of colourizing text like for hundreds of programing (and otehr) languages formats in a simple text editor. This is not a rocket science but we still do not have it :(
masti
Have you tried wikiEd ?
* David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com [Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:43:14 +0000]:
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a
barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup
that
can
be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would
reap
huge
rewards in the safety and effectiveness of automated tools - authors
of
tools like AWB have just as much trouble making software handle the
corner
cases in wikitext markup as new editors have understanding it.
In every discussion so far, throwing out wikitext and replacing it with something that isn't a crawling horror has been considered a non-starter, given ten years and terabytes of legacy wikitext.
If you think you can swing throwing out wikitext and barring the actual code from human editing - XML is not safely human editable in any circumstances - then good luck to you, but I don't like your chances.
New templating could be implemented in parallel - not having to abandon these terabytes. Inserting something like XSL to a wikipage should be orthogonal to wiki templating syntax (only some of tag hook names will be unavailable due to XSL using these). However, I do agree to you that XML (or XSL) tag editing is a hard job, sometimes even harder than wikitext. Wikitext is really fast way to build articles to people who type fast enough. Wikitext for markup and links and XSL for templates, perhaps. There is also a HEREDOC style for almost arbitrary content. Many possible ways to have two languages in parallel. Dmitriy
Can we use a Javascript based parser to convert the wiki markup language to some intermediate object, which can be easily converted to both languages (wiki markup language and HTML)? I think JQuery object is a good idea. We can extend JQuery to include such language conversion methods.
On 29 December 2010 16:20, Philip Tzou philip.npc@gmail.com wrote:
Can we use a Javascript based parser to convert the wiki markup language to some intermediate object, which can be easily converted to both languages (wiki markup language and HTML)? I think JQuery object is a good idea. We can extend JQuery to include such language conversion methods.
Magnus has already written a quick toy to this effect, "WYSIWTF":
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2010-December/108090.html
In later messages he lists various possible paths for expansion.
- d.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org