I don't see why Wikipedia looks 99% fabulous in lynx and w3m, but blows it on such a simple thing like dates in tables,
$ lynx -dump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites Please note the list is not exhaustive, and is limited to notable, well-known sites. Name Description/Focus Date launched [12]Registered users Registration Global [13]Alexa^[14][1] Page ranking [15]Academia.edu Social networking site for academics/researchers 02008-09-01September 2008 &0000000000211000000000211,000^[16][2] Open &00000000000092940000009,294^[17][3] [18]Advogato [19]Free and [20]open source software developers 01999 1999 &000000000001357500000013,575^[21][4] Open...
Why can't they go that extra one percent and clean all those silly zeros out of their tables?
Yes those stubborn text browser users should be denied extra features, but can't they at least be given something readable. Search engines would thank you too.
Sure you can say "not a MediaWiki problem, go contact the website", but if MediaWiki gave them the proper tools to make their templates, they wouldn't need to make such a mess.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:23 PM, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
Sure you can say "not a MediaWiki problem, go contact the website", but if MediaWiki gave them the proper tools to make their templates, they wouldn't need to make such a mess.
What tools would you propose?
-Chad
On 07/09/2011 06:25 AM, Chad wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:23 PM,jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
Sure you can say "not a MediaWiki problem, go contact the website", but if MediaWiki gave them the proper tools to make their templates, they wouldn't need to make such a mess.
What tools would you propose?
A smarter table sorter would help. (I believe those zeros come from sort keys generated by templates and hidden from most browsers by CSS.)
As it happens, I believe we've just got (or are about to get?) one. But someone ought to go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sorting_templates and see just how many of them we can make unnecessary by smarter sorting.
(It would also be nice to have some way to specify manual sort keys, in those cases where they really are needed, through some mechanism that doesn't involve CSS hacks.)
On 9 July 2011 06:58, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
On 07/09/2011 06:25 AM, Chad wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:23 PM,jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
Sure you can say "not a MediaWiki problem, go contact the website", but if MediaWiki gave them the proper tools to make their templates, they wouldn't need to make such a mess.
What tools would you propose?
A smarter table sorter would help. (I believe those zeros come from sort keys generated by templates and hidden from most browsers by CSS.)
As it happens, I believe we've just got (or are about to get?) one. But someone ought to go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sorting_templates and see just how many of them we can make unnecessary by smarter sorting.
(It would also be nice to have some way to specify manual sort keys, in those cases where they really are needed, through some mechanism that doesn't involve CSS hacks.)
It exists and it's called data-sort-value attribute. And it's already live on Wikipedia as far as I can see.
-Niklas
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Niklas Laxström niklas.laxstrom@gmail.com wrote:
It exists and it's called data-sort-value attribute. And it's already live on Wikipedia as far as I can see.
data-* attributes are only valid in HTML5 and will not work until $wgHtml5 is set to true. As has been discussed here a number of times, it's been true on trunk continuously since r53142 (June 12, 2009) and in releases since 1.16, but it hasn't yet been enabled on Wikimedia sites. Apparently there are finally plans to try enabling it for Wikimedia in the near future.
"C" == Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com writes:
C> What tools would you propose?
Can you find me one site on the Internet that butchers dates so 2011 becomes 02011 in text browsers? Yes I "filed" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dts#text_browsers . The next thing you know you'll be rendering it in hexadecimal.
And the all those zer0000000000000s in the tables. My proposal is set the most important requirement to be that the rendered output be at least readable, if not the same, for all output devices and search engines. Then work backwards from that basic requirement to satisfy internal sorting requirements or what have you.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org