Hah, you actually think that the WikiText conversion to XHTML is a good conversion to use as a base for a XML version.

I suggest you actually look over the source of a parsed page before you make insane assumptions like that.

>From [[Wikipedia:Talk:Main Page]]

Errors in In the news

The Wikileaks entry says it is "offline", but this is not true. As our Wikileaks article says, it is still online at its IP address. --Jedravent (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just tried the links. Wikileaks.org is still off-line, but Wikileaks.be (a mirror site?) is accessible. If you think the wrong link has been placed on the Wikileaks article, please discuss this at Talk:Wikileaks. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, Wikileaks is not "offline", as it can still be accessed. --Jedravent (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the headline is misleading. Wikileaks is not offline. Their previous primary domain name, wikileaks.org is no longer available by court order. If we are going to keep this, we need to explain the situation without misleading people Nil Einne (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikileaks entry should say "the Wikileaks.org site is unavailable, however the site remains online an can be reached via its mirrors.Thalia42 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the output?

<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&amp;action=edit&amp;section=T-2" title="Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline">Errors in the summary of <i>Today's featured article</i> on the Main Page</span></h2>

<p><a name="Errors_in_In_the_news" id="Errors_in_In_the_news"></a></p>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&amp;action=edit&amp;section=T-3" title="Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline">Errors in <i>In the news</i></span></h2>
<ul>
<li>The Wikileaks entry says it is "offline", but this is not true. As our <a href="/wiki/Wikileaks" title="Wikileaks">Wikileaks</a> article says, it is still online at its IP address. --<a href="/wiki/User:Jedravent" title="User:Jedravent">Jedravent</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Jedravent" title="User talk:Jedravent">talk</a>) 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</li>

</ul>
<dl>
<dd>I just tried the links. Wikileaks.org is still off-line, but Wikileaks.be (a mirror site?) is accessible. If you think the wrong link has been placed on the <a href="/wiki/Wikileaks" title="Wikileaks">Wikileaks</a> article, please discuss this at <a href="/wiki/Talk:Wikileaks" title="Talk:Wikileaks">Talk:Wikileaks</a>. Thanks. --<a href="/wiki/User:PFHLai" title="User:PFHLai">PFHLai</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:PFHLai" title="User talk:PFHLai">talk</a>) 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
<dl>
<dd>Still, Wikileaks is not "offline", as it can still be accessed. --<a href="/wiki/User:Jedravent" title="User:Jedravent">Jedravent</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Jedravent" title="User talk:Jedravent">talk</a>) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

<dl>
<dd>I agree, the headline is misleading. Wikileaks is not offline. Their previous primary domain name, wikileaks.org is no longer available by court order. If we are going to keep this, we need to explain the situation without misleading people <a href="/wiki/User:Nil_Einne" title="User:Nil Einne">Nil Einne</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Nil_Einne" title="User talk:Nil Einne">talk</a>) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>Wikileaks entry should say "the Wikileaks.org site is unavailable, however the site remains online an can be reached via its mirrors.<a href="/w/index.php?title=User:Thalia42&amp;action=edit" class="new" title="User:Thalia42">Thalia42</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Thalia42" title="User talk:Thalia42">talk</a>) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</dd>

</dl>

: is both for indentation, and for definitions. Take this:
;Foo: A commonly used expression used in technical discussions to refer to an example.
;Bar: Another commonly used expression used in technical discussions which often accommodates Foo.
And this:
Here's my first comment, so who's making the second? ~~~~
:I am, who's making the third? ~~~~
::That would be me.
::Did you know we even like to spread comments over multiple lines? ~~~~
:Ya, we sometimes drop backwards in our indentation to! ~~~~
::You guys do know that you're actually using definition lists to create your indentation, right? ~~~~
:::Er, what's a definition list? ~~~~
::::Markup used in HTML to create a list of word and definition pairs. ~~~~
:::::Eh, I thought we were using WikiText, not HTML? ~~~~

Now... parse that through the parser, and tell me what is a set of word/definition pairs, and what is indentation? No sane parser can do something like that. And if you want anything remotely sane for XML editing, which isn't sane, you'll need to distinguish between the two.

Oh ya...
This is a paragraph.
This is another paragraph.
Now tell me, who used double lines to create those paragraphs. And who actually used the tag?
Honestly, I don't want to need to use a when writing markup every time I want a new paragraph.
And using a &lt;p/&gt; to describe the syntax is absolutely disturbing.

Now... Tell me who is more insane?
The person trying to create a XML language for editing.
Or the person who is driven up the wall by trying to stare at the mangled <>'s inside their "document" that is supposed to be something they can edit.

And don't tell me that it'll all be fixed by a WYSIWYG editor which will let people edit without seeing the tags. That's bull because there are plenty of people around who don't have JavaScript enabled, don't have a good enough browser to handle it, can't access a computer with a browser better than IE for Mac, are running IE 5.5, or are editing using a mobile browser which will never be able to handle WYSIWYG. Honestly tell me you can handle the death threats you'll get by dropping support for a fair fraction of MediaWiki end users and forcing them into a black hole to try and edit...

~Daniel Friesen(Dantman) of:
-The Gaiapedia (http://gaia.wikia.com)
-Wikia ACG on Wikia.com (http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_ACG)
-and Wiki-Tools.com (http://wiki-tools.com)

David Gerard wrote:

On 18/02/2008, Minh Lê Ngọc <cumeo89@gmail.com> wrote:

I know that a lot of wikitext has been written but I think the problem is:
which work is harder, complete wikitext and build wysiwyg or build xml-based
markup, convert to it and build wysiwyg upon it.
I think convert to xml is not too difficult because almost of wikitext
constructs have already been converted to html day after day. We only have
to convert some like inclusion, reference, parser function... And build a
wysiwyg editor with xml-like markup is much easier than one with wikitext.



Conversion from wikitext to XHTML is easy. Converting back is likely
to be quite a bit less easy, but might be worth a try.


- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikitext-l mailing list
Wikitext-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitext-l