Maybe could be interesting to save a wiki Page as a Flash movie, with the frames as the versions of the page. With a slider to move back in time, or forward. First frame first edit, last frame last edit.
You can even stream it, start with last frame, and send one before, and the one before that one.. etc.. and stop with the first one.
Or even a "Save as PDF" button on the wikipedia.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Tei oscar.vives@gmail.com wrote:
Or even a "Save as PDF" button on the wikipedia.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikis_Go_Printable
http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Collection/render_article/?arttitle=M...
From what I have seen of that feature, it is going to need a lot more
tweaking before it is ready to be rolled out. That said, it could indeed be a useful feature in the future.
As for flash being a nono, what is so wrong with using it for a feature such as this? My only real worry about using it in such a circumstance would be that it would be used liberally on the monobook itself... how about as a gadget?
- Chris
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Tei oscar.vives@gmail.com wrote:
Or even a "Save as PDF" button on the wikipedia.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikis_Go_Printable
http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Collection/render_article/?arttitle=M...
-- --alnokta _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Chris Down neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com wrote:
As for flash being a nono, what is so wrong with using it for a feature such as this? My only real worry about using it in such a circumstance would be that it would be used liberally on the monobook itself... how about as a gadget?
It happens to be unfree.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Chris Down neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com wrote:
From what I have seen of that feature, it is going to need a lot more tweaking before it is ready to be rolled out. That said, it could indeed be a useful feature in the future.
As for flash being a nono, what is so wrong with using it for a feature such as this? My only real worry about using it in such a circumstance would be that it would be used liberally on the monobook itself... how about as a gadget?
In this case there isn't much point in discussing flash from a pure technical perspective, since you can already do fairly good animation with simple broadly compatible JS. (and examples of such already exist)
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Chris Down neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com wrote:
From what I have seen of that feature, it is going to need a lot more tweaking before it is ready to be rolled out. That said, it could indeed be a useful feature in the future.
As for flash being a nono, what is so wrong with using it for a feature such as this? My only real worry about using it in such a circumstance would be that it would be used liberally on the monobook itself... how about as a gadget?
In this case there isn't much point in discussing flash from a pure technical perspective, since you can already do fairly good animation with simple broadly compatible JS. (and examples of such already exist)
I did one here: http://zerror.com/bin/videolol/
Other than Opera for Nintendo DS, having a JS based video player make no sense.
Anyway this is a discussion for mailto:wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org?subject='[OT] Is Flash Evil?'&body=yes
Often people choose binary protocols (like SWF) because it make easier to optimize the filesize. Anything that make lots of request to a server may have a horrible overheat. And you can save a SWF file, and play it offline.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Tei oscar.vives@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway this is a discussion for mailto:wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org?subject='[OT] Is Flash Evil?'&body=yes
Often people choose binary protocols (like SWF) because it make easier to optimize the filesize. Anything that make lots of request to a server may have a horrible overheat. And you can save a SWF file, and play it offline.
Whether Flash is acceptable for Wikimedia uses is not off-topic. It's been discussed here and on Foundation-l in the past, and it's been made clear that it and other non-free formats will be avoided wherever practical for official uses. Of course, what users may choose to put up on the toolserver or other places is a different issue.
I don't know why you think JavaScript-based animation would cause larger filesize here. In principle all you'd need is a short procedural script that would replace the HTML of the page and let the browser re-render it. Unless you plan to squish it so that it fits in a reasonable-sized image, and is unreadable on large pages?
Of course, actually rendering the real page would have a very good use beyond being standards-compliant: it would serve as a quick way to jump through revisions looking for where a change was introduced or similar, rather than having to go back to the history page and click a link. You could even do prefetching to avoid synchronous page loads and thereby make it very fast, like paging through Gmail. It could be quite practical.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Aryeh Gregor Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
[...] It could be quite practical.
Presuming that old versions of images and templates where loaded along side, of course.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Presuming that old versions of images and templates where loaded along side, of course.
That would definitely be nice, but not critical for it to be fairly useful. If it just used existing history views, that would be pretty useful too.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Aryeh Gregor Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote: ...
Of course, actually rendering the real page would have a very good use beyond being standards-compliant: it would serve as a quick way to jump through revisions looking for where a change was introduced or similar, rather than having to go back to the history page and click a link. You could even do prefetching to avoid synchronous page loads and thereby make it very fast, like paging through Gmail. It could be quite practical.
Related: I just found that wikipedia let you use a custom javascript, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:username/monobook.js thats is a better option than greasemonkey, very interesting!.
Hi there,
There exists a greasemonkey-script for animating the history of a page. This could relatively easy be converted into a Gadget.
Flash <whatever> is a *big* no-no in my book.
/Stigmj
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Tei oscar.vives@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe could be interesting to save a wiki Page as a Flash movie, with the frames as the versions of the page. With a slider to move back in time, or forward. First frame first edit, last frame last edit.
You can even stream it, start with last frame, and send one before, and the one before that one.. etc.. and stop with the first one.
Or even a "Save as PDF" button on the wikipedia.
--
ℱin del ℳensaje.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Tei oscar.vives@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe could be interesting to save a wiki Page as a Flash movie, with the frames as the versions of the page. With a slider to move back in time, or forward. First frame first edit, last frame last edit.
You can even stream it, start with last frame, and send one before, and the one before that one.. etc.. and stop with the first one.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org