Brion Vibber wrote:

On Oct 6, 2004, at 2:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

...

Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:

...

Some browsers are not UNICODE compliant. The consequence is that some users are breaking pages... and don't understant how/why. I propose to implement a test on each update of article, and put a warning if the user's browser belongs to a regexp (browser black list) specified in the config file.

As they have a negative effect on mediawiki content, why not banning them from changing stuff ? The reason is obvious NPOV and there are good quality alternatives like Firefox.

a) the broken stuff can be fixed and b) they won't break every page.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

How is the broken stuff fixed ?? When this is done automagically it is no problem otherwise, it is like vandalism, it gets only picked up when it is noticed.

Thanks, GerardM

Anthere wrote:

Gerard Meijssen a écrit:

...

Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:

...

Hi

Some browsers are not UNICODE compliant. The consequence is that some users are breaking pages... and don't understant how/why. I propose to implement a test on each update of article, and put a warning if the user's browser belongs to a regexp (browser black list) specified in the config file.

reactions ?

Best regards

Emmanuel Engelhart

As they have a negative effect on mediawiki content, why not banning them from changing stuff ? The reason is obvious NPOV and there are good quality alternatives like Firefox.

Thanks, GerardM

Banning someone just because he has an old browser/computer is not a good idea...

Which NPOV are you talking about ?

anthere

Banning someone because he has an old computer is not in question. Banning someone because he has an old browser is in itself also not a problem. The neutral point is when a particular brand / version breaks the Mediawiki content AND when we have no way of preventing damage. When we inform that we DO want their edits but that a different browser like Firefox, prevents the user to damage our data, it will be reasonable and measured to request the user to install a browser that we help him choose.

Most defininitly we are NOT banning persons here, we are banning tools that damage our data.

Thanks, Gerard

Selon Gerard Meijssen gerardm@myrealbox.com:

Anthere wrote:

...

Gerard Meijssen a écrit:

...

Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:

...

Hi

Some browsers are not UNICODE compliant. The consequence is that some users are breaking pages... and don't understant how/why. I propose to implement a test on each update of article, and put a warning if the user's browser belongs to a regexp (browser black list) specified in the config file.

reactions ?

Best regards

Emmanuel Engelhart

As they have a negative effect on mediawiki content, why not banning them from changing stuff ? The reason is obvious NPOV and there are good quality alternatives like Firefox.

Thanks, GerardM

Banning someone just because he has an old browser/computer is not a good idea...

Which NPOV are you talking about ?

anthere

Banning someone because he has an old computer is not in question. Banning someone because he has an old browser is in itself also not a problem. The neutral point is when a particular brand / version breaks the Mediawiki content AND when we have no way of preventing damage. When we inform that we DO want their edits but that a different browser like Firefox, prevents the user to damage our data, it will be reasonable and measured to request the user to install a browser that we help him choose.

Most defininitly we are NOT banning persons here, we are banning tools that damage our data.

I agree with Ant. We have to encourage people to participate.

I propose : - put a warning for the edit box - a confirm dialog box - a appended string on the update notice, so someone on the 'last changes' page can be warned.

Emmanuel