There's been some progress with the monobook skin recently, new things are basic rtl support and user styles.
You can tweak styles in the monobook skin by adding a page called 'monobook.css' as a subpage of your user page. My test css is at http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwicke/monobook.css for example.
Similar with js, the it's called monobook.js in that case. Other skins don't have the links in the header currently, but those are easy to add.
The css and js pages are editable only to the user and developers, they appear protected to anybody else.
The wiki src is retrived with a new method to get the raw wiki text: http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwicke/monobook.css?action=raw&ctype...
Allowed ctypes are text/css, text/javascript, text/x-wiki and application/x-zope-edit. Any of these return the plain wiki src, just the content header differs. A charset option is optional, e.g. &charset=utf-8.
Brion and me have added an RTL stylesheet to monobook, it seems to work fine in Opera 7.23, Mozilla/Firefox, IE5.5 and mostly IE6. Screenshots at http://wikidev.net/MonoBook_RTL.
"GW" == Gabriel Wicke gw@gabrielwicke.de writes:
GW> The wiki src is retrived with a new method to get the raw wiki GW> text: GW> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwicke/monobook.css?action=raw&ctype...
GW> Allowed ctypes are text/css, text/javascript, text/x-wiki and GW> application/x-zope-edit. Any of these return the plain wiki GW> src, just the content header differs. A charset option is GW> optional, e.g. &charset=utf-8.
Why the heck would a request for text/css return wiki markup? That seems really broken.
~ESP
On Apr 29, 2004, at 06:10, Evan Prodromou wrote:
"GW" == Gabriel Wicke gw@gabrielwicke.de writes:
GW> The wiki src is retrived with a new method to get the raw wiki GW> text: GW>http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwicke/monobook.css? action=raw&ctype=text/css
GW> Allowed ctypes are text/css, text/javascript, text/x-wiki and GW> application/x-zope-edit. Any of these return the plain wiki GW> src, just the content header differs. A charset option is GW> optional, e.g. &charset=utf-8.Why the heck would a request for text/css return wiki markup? That seems really broken.
Because you put CSS in that wiki page.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
"BV" == Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com writes:
Me> Why the heck would a request for text/css return wiki markup? Me> That seems really broken.
BV> Because you put CSS in that wiki page.
Blech. Well, is this going to be enabled by default? Can you disable it?
~ESP
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 15:58 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
"BV" == Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com writes:
Me> Why the heck would a request for text/css return wiki markup? Me> That seems really broken. BV> Because you put CSS in that wiki page.Blech. Well, is this going to be enabled by default? Can you disable it?
Just don't use it if you don't like it ;-)
On Apr 29, 2004, at 12:58, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Me> Why the heck would a request for text/css return wiki markup? Me> That seems really broken. BV> Because you put CSS in that wiki page.Blech. Well, is this going to be enabled by default? Can you disable it?
You just wouldn't put anything in those pages, the equivalent of not setting an optional preference.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
"BV" == Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com writes:
BV> You just wouldn't put anything in those pages, the equivalent BV> of not setting an optional preference.
I meant on a site-wide basis. Don't worry about it; I'll take a look at the code and see if I can set up some disabling globals.
~ESP
Evan Prodromou wrote:
"BV" == Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com writes:
BV> You just wouldn't put anything in those pages, the equivalent BV> of not setting an optional preference.I meant on a site-wide basis. Don't worry about it; I'll take a look at the code and see if I can set up some disabling globals.
I don't understand why one would want to disable this? What harm does it do?
"T" == Timwi timwi@gmx.net writes:
T> I don't understand why one would want to disable this? What T> harm does it do?
Do you want to know my reasons, or do you want to convince me not to disable the feature?
Here's my reasons:
0) Protected pages are evil. Any feature that requires them deserves intense scrutiny.
1) Supporting custom-hacked CSS and Javascript is a chore I don't want as a site admin.
2) The whole idea encourages a very self-centered culture I don't want to support or cultivate. I'd rather contributors submitted ideas to improve one of a set of global style sheets that everyone can use, than waste community resources diddling with a personal stylesheet so the site looks just so, just for them.
~ESP
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org