Tim Landscheidt wrote:
Any pointers to things that I overlooked? Thoughts on in- terfaces & Co.? Volunteers? :-)
Tim
It's a bit hard for me to understand what your tool does, since it gives a blank page when English is selected, and it takes the html source instead of the wiki source.
I get that you look for two kind of bugs: "wiki text errors" (like an unclosed tag) and "wikipedia errors" (the date doesn't conform to the manual of style).
For the first kind of errors, I have long dreamed of a feature which actually gave out errors in such case. Wikitext must accept everything, but some acceptances are in "quirks mode". If it showed the errors (to power users which opt in), they could be fixed in a more specific way than just relying on the generic parser fix to "do the right thing".
The second class of errors could be checked on top of it. It's project specific, anyway.
It would provide a definition of right wikitext, have some support at upstream, fix things like bug 21798 or bug 21534 and hopefully even improve the parser. I have dealt with the parser a bit (see bug 18765) and I don't think we could make some things remotely sane as they are handled at completely different steps. But linting completely insane ones shouldn't be too hard. :)
On the other hand, going into the Parser is probably quite far from what you expected when wanting to leave your ugly mess of regexes. Also, I may have misunderstood your position and it may not be appropiate for your lint expectations.