Giant mails follow, no panic.
2012/2/6 Gabriel Wicke <wicke(a)wikidev.net>et>:
The enriched HTML DOM we are
building (and actually most token stream processing including template
expansion) is not tied to any specific syntax or user interface.
It is tied to HTML
and it's the same. Even if all of current wikitext
features can be represented by HTML (which I doubt) there's no
guarantee that this will be true in furutre. This view has probably
led to current messy markup.
When I'm saying that HTML can't represent even current wikitext
features I imply that we're not talking about microformats and other
XHTML tricks. And if we're talking about plain HTML then why not use a
completely new format for storing DOM? Or at least clean XML without
any standard namespaces that in theory should ease rendering of DOM
into HTML (?). It will be parser-specific and won't suffer from future
changes of linked namespaces, will be simple to test, etc.
On Future/Parser development diagram HTML DOM is built right after the
stream has been parsed into a tree... in other words HTML5 is used to
represent wiki. With tricks.
But I'm already venturing into an offtopic discussion here.
But in any case, we first have to implement a solid
tokenizer for the
current syntax and recreate at least a part of the higher-level
functionality (template expansion etc) based on a syntax-independent
representation.
I agree on this one.
2012/2/6 Sumana Harihareswara <sumanah(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
Pavel, you're clearly both an intelligent and
a technical man - but not all intelligence is of the same,
technically-minded type, and it's not always backed up by pertinent and
complex knowledge.
I'm flattered with your words, thanks, Oliver.
However, this does not explain why at first Wikipedians had no
troubles editing (and even creating) articles and now they are
gradually loosing this skill. Is this a result of general degradation?
I would hate to think this way and believe it's more what Yury has
already said above - the project is just getting mature and,
naturally, subjects for new articles that are left require more than a
general knowledge while edits for existing articles are either
complete, require some special knowledge as well or are plain
unmotivated enough - new page patrol, "article babysitting", etc. are
all "dirty" work and by definition are not that interesting as adding
a new article section, prooflink or even correcting a simple typo.
In other words regular edits can be done by most visitors while
maintenance - by small slice of them. It's the same with computers and
users: most of people can use the computer but only some of them can
type regedit.exe without breaking things. Is it different with
Wikipedia? Is it different with most other non-commercial project?
The complexity of our existing markup language is a
barrier, but not as
much as the presence of any markup language whatsoever as a default.
Now this is
something specific to argue about. I must admit that your
speech has given me something to think about; perhaps you're right and
the fact that initial editors of Wikipedia have come from that "first
wave" of the Internet users - with this in mind it's understandable
why their number is wearing out.
The usability studies that you have referred to speak with one accord
that WYSIWYG is a must. I admit it sounds appropriate in that context.
Still, another link suggests that even non-technical people were able
to edit and (uh!) format text as bold and italic given a bit of help.
And then it notes that even before doing any edits - or seeing an
editor's window, be it text or visual - people were confronted with
dozens of guideline links and warnings.
Which problem is more important? How you're going to present users
with warnings in an inline visual editor? Or is it easier to just put
"I've read and understood the rules" fobber-off and consider the
matter settled?
More things to ponder about before my peaceful sleep, huh.
p.s: I wonder why people who can actually give answers are quite often
not in the mailing lists.
2012/2/6 Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>ca>:
As I understand it, for the foreseeable future there
will be a raw wiki
syntax interface available. I hope contributors can be reassured on this
point.
Combined with:
2012/2/6 Trevor Parscal <tparscal(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
Make significant changes to what Wikitext is and can
do
The problem with this is that if present "raw wiki syntax" will be
kept it will ensure that edits continue downfall.
The concern I see being expressed, fundamentally, is
"I have developed
skills, practices, and efficiencies with current Wiki syntax. Is your
new parser going to destroy my investments in learning? am I going to
have to start over with this new system?"
I think it's close in words but
not in the meaning. What will you
choose: cope with an old dusty car of your grandfather with annual
repairs, dyeing, cleaning or find a free day, go to a nearby shop,
choose a top-notch car with nano-tech-driven automatic repair, dyeing,
cleaner that will serve you for the foreseeable future?
How many programmers (given the opportunity) choose to maintain old
spaghetti code over refactoring it to something they'll have pleasure
working with?
Quite few, as you probably know. It's the same with common folk who'll
stick to old printer, scanner and copier than a new all-in-one device.
But it's not right and everyone knows that it's better when they break
this trend.
2012/2/7 Jay Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com>om>:
Correct, and it isn't merely investments in
learning; there are likely
investments in wrap-around-the-outside coding which assume access to markup
as well. Not All Mediawikiae Are Wikipedia.
I hope this was not a case for keeping
old markup running. Most of the
time it's better to provide backward compatibility module running on
top of the new system than to fix and repair the old system trying to
pursue mythical goal of supporting old versions.
Look at C++ STL and what it has become since '89. Look at Microsoft
Windows and if its performance on an 4xi7 core has scaled along with
Windows 95 on an 80356.
2012/2/7 Mihaly Heder <hedermisi(a)gmail.com>om>:
the millions of pages we already have is not easy to
convert in the
absence of a formalized wiki grammar
Indeed, but this can be solved by bringing
together all pieces of
modern wikitext under one roof and building a new strict grammar apart
from that. Then a converter can be written that will seamlessly
transform old syntax into new and warn user when this is not possible.
From what I know this is the direction WMF is going.
and some of them are already
afraid that this skill will be obsolete because of the new editor,
like the thread starter
This is the second time this argument appears in this
thread but I
don't understand it. Will you be afraid to "lose" your old coat that
has worn our in a bin?
By following this list I hope I gathered how they plan
to tackle this
really hard problem:
...
I think this is the smartest thing to do in this situation.
I agree, this is a way
to go. If this works out then even terrible
markup syntax won't be such a big trouble as it is now because if you
disagree you can write your own tokenizer. The point is: why keep
terrible syntax? It will be necessary to parse and transform the old
wikitext syntax - I hope this is not argued - then why care how much
improved markup will look like it or will it be completely different
at all?
People will only greet the fact that, while a full-scale visual editor
is underway, they at least can read and make occasional edits using
more or less humane syntax. The best possible.
Isn't Wikimedia about a world with free knowledge? If so, it deals
with texts most of the time. And the tools used have to be top-notch -
there is no Microsoft to lobby OpenXML and force it down CEOs'
throats.
I might sound rude but I hope for understanding. 5 years are enough
for a single person (if he's minimally funded) to carry on the
research, create an ideal markup language (as ideal as it can be
spanning all cultures and nations), write a parser/serializer/renderer
and even attach a text editor with advanced features made from
scratch. And then there's even half of the time left.
Everyone at WMF able to hold the sword can get this thing done once
and for all in a very short amount of time. No more annual parser
rewrites, no more markup hell. After all, MediaWiki and its markup is
the main workhorse of the community. It can't be kept on shelf that
long...
Signed,
P. Tkachenko