-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Virgil Ierubino wrote:
Why is MediaWiki so low-tech? [snip]
I'm sure this kind of response will spark righteous indignation on the part of every developer who has a clue on what's going on underneath MediaWiki's hood. Plus, lack of AJAX does not mean "low-tech", which you have so insinuated.
Furthermore, you've mixed up AJAX (which, while slow in coming, is being implemented when appropriate) and inline-WYSIWYG editing (which poses immense technical challenges due to the legacy baggage of our wikitext format). If you want to see "state-of-the-art" MediaWiki work, please check out: http://wikiwyg.net/ http://demo.wikiwyg.net/wikiwyg/demo/standalone/
Finally, the trouble of maintaining accessibility is probably the last of our concerns. We don't /have/ the more advanced features implemented in a stable manner yet, this is *open source*
On 06/01/07, Edward Z. Yang edwardzyang@thewritingpot.com wrote:
I'm sure this kind of response will spark righteous indignation on the part of every developer who has a clue on what's going on underneath MediaWiki's hood. Plus, lack of AJAX does not mean "low-tech", which you have so insinuated.
Better "low tech" than pumped full of AJAX all over the place. AJAX that's not been properly integrated, so we lock out blind people or those who don't have JavaScript because it doesn't degrade gracefully. AJAX that irritates the user causing them to disable said JavaScript. AJAX that hasn't been tested for security vulnerabilities. AJAX that's basically thrown into the software *for the sake of using a buzzword*.
Rob Church
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob Church wrote:
Better "low tech" than pumped full of AJAX all over the place. AJAX that's not been properly integrated, so we lock out blind people or those who don't have JavaScript because it doesn't degrade gracefully. AJAX that irritates the user causing them to disable said JavaScript. AJAX that hasn't been tested for security vulnerabilities. AJAX that's basically thrown into the software *for the sake of using a buzzword*.
Erm... was that directed at me? (and also, why isn't my reply showing up on the newsgroup... hmm...)
On 06/01/07, Edward Z. Yang edwardzyang@thewritingpot.com wrote:
Erm... was that directed at me? (and also, why isn't my reply showing up on the newsgroup... hmm...)
No, it was a half-assed response to the OP more than anything else.
Rob Church
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org