You stated "I think convert to xml is not too difficult because almost of wikitext constructs have already been converted to html day after day." However, converting WikiText to XML and converting it to XHTML meant only for display are completely different things.
Now covering all the possible bases that could be made on that I can derive...
There's no way to convert WikiText directly into XML in the way you imply without a proper grammar. Which if created, will already void the point of converting over. And you can't use the converted XHTML to come up with a good way of representing the data inputed.
Next in line, is the notion of ditching WikiText without converting it. Honestly, is that even sane... There are over ... articles on Wikipedia alone. Not to mention the other large sites like Wikia. Ditching a language used everywhere like that, is like removing all definition of the Chinese language and telling them that Chinese can no longer be used. You get riots... Now if you say that those sites can stick with WikiText. Then there's little point in creating a new language, because there's little point in a new parser language if Wikipedia is not using it. That's like telling the WikiMedia Foundation to cut off Wikipedia's upgrades because it's getting to old.
Then there's the mention of a XML equivalent of WikiText. You mean, replace things like: :Comment With: <indent>Comment</indent> Or: <dl>Comment</dl> I hardly see how that is any different, as a simple regex will easily match both. Any further, and we're doing it in a way which we can't convert existing WikiText into tags... And then we're right back at the notion of ditching WikiText without converting it, which as I've already explained is insane.
Then there's the notion of XML structures being cleaner, easier to parse, and not to difficult to read. And half that is bull. Sure, a XML language is good for a parser. But cleaner... That's starting to push it. And not to difficult to read... That's just crap. There's no way a pile of <>'s all over the text is anywhere near easy to read, and to someone who doesn't even understand XML that's just bull. WikiText was designed to be able to be editable by nearly anyone. An XML language will never be clean enough for the average person to edit. And like I said, don't state any crap about them using WYSIWYG. There are plenty of users who can't use a WYSIWYG editor and will need to be able to edit plain text. And a XML based language isn't anywhere near friendly for them.
~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)
Minh Lê Ngo.c wrote:
2008/2/20, DanTMan dan_the_man@telus.net:
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&action=edit&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&action=edit&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> <blockquote>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&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>
It is not necessary. I think it should like this:
<h2>Errors in <i>In the news</i></h2>
<ul> <li> The Wikileaks entry says it is "offline", but this is not true. As our <a wtitle="Wikileaks">Wikileaks</a> article says, it is still online at its IP address.<a wtitle="User:Jedravent">Jedravent</a> (<a wtitle="User talk:Jedravent">talk</a>) 16:51, 19 Febuary 2008 (UTC) </li> </ul>
<blockquote> I just tried the links. <a href="http://Wikileaks.org">Wikileaks.org</a> is still off-line, but <a href="http://Wikileaks.be">Wikileaks.be</a> (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. --<a wtitle="User:PFHLai">PFHLai</a> (<a wtitle="User talk:PFHLai>talk</a>) 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote> Still, Wikileaks is not "offline", as it can still be accessed. --<a wtitle="User:Jedravent">Jedravent</a> (<a wtitle="User talk:Jedravent">talk</a>) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote> 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 wtitle="User:Nil_Einne">Nil Einne</a> (<a wtitle="User talk:Nil_Einne">talk</a>) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
</blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<blockquote> Wikileaks entry should say "the <a href="http://Wikileaks.org">Wikileaks.org</a> site is unavailable, however the site remains online an can be reached via its mirrors.<a wtitle="User:Thalia42">Thalia42</a> (<a wtitle="User talk:Thalia42">talk</a>) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC) </blockquote>
Isn't it too difficult for you?
Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de
XHTML would only be good for the formatting aspects. It can't represent parser functions, template calls, etc. XML lets you mix and match vocabularies, of course.
I have never said that we'll use native XHTML. I said that Wikitext is too loose, making it difficult to parse and we waste a lot of work hours for it. What I suggest is a XML-based markup because it's less painful and I can prove with you, it can represent anything Wikitext can. We just only add some tags as: <if>, <include>, <value-of> and even <for-each>,... It's sound complicated but it isn't more complicated than Wikitext at all. It's nothing more than Wikitext structures rewritten in XML style. It's good because it's clearer, easier to parse and not too difficult to read.
Wikitext-l mailing list Wikitext-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitext-l