Brion Vibber wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Any comments on this before I put it live
everywhere?
Just the comment I already made at
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1227#c12
"IMHO the extension's rather low-level and awkward. It works, but it's
ugly, and as with too many of our fancy syntaxes and extensions it drops
this big blob of incomprehensible _stuff_ directly into the text of the
article using it, cluttering up the editor's view.
What would be slicker would be if we can rig up a visual editor for the
thingy; compare with adding notations to images on flickr.
That might end up spitting back the same extension code, or we might
integrate it more directly into the image page, or something else. (cf
the long-ago talk of having a separate namespace for tables... man I
wish we'd done that instead of what we did, it would make a lot of thing
simpler)"
Yes, the user interface sucks. I was aiming with this extension to
implement image maps in a manner consistent with the rest of MediaWiki --
a robust implementation but limited in scope. It sucks as much as
everything else we have.
So do you want it or don't you? I'm not writing a visual editor right now,
so unless anyone else wants to step forward, it's this or nothing. Will
the extension be a help or a hindrance when we get around to
revolutionising MediaWiki's ease of use?
-- Tim Starling