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 (
2008/2/20, DanTMan <dan_the_man(a)telus.net>et>:
<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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitext-l