2012/8/3 Jeff Hammel <[email protected]> > On 08/03/2012 11:38 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > 2012/8/3 Jeff Hammel <[email protected]> > >> I would argue HTML is a good, or even great, backing format. It's what >> mozilla does. It is a real standard. There are a plethora of tools to deal >> with HTML documents. It is very malleable. There is a clear DOM >> translation to its markup. > > > How is this compatible with the fact that earlier in this thread, it has > been said that the fact that the HTML source of MDN pages was hard to > translate to other markup languages, meaning that offering another markup > editing option would be hard? > > Source formats should be easy to translate to other formats. HTML is > mostly a final-form format, in this respect. HTML code generated by WYSIWYG > editors even more so. > > Benoit > > mediawiki syntax does not cover all of HTML. HTML is a superset of > what mediawiki can represent, so that it can not be losslessly translated > to mediawiki syntax. >
Indeed. Do we really need more than the feature set of mediawiki? I.e. does MDN need more features than e.g. Wikipedia? I bet not! That's probably the core of the problem here: HTML is a too generalist format for the problem at hand. Benoit > There are translators that do this, e.g. > http://code.google.com/p/gwtwiki/wiki/HTML2Mediawiki , but since > mediawiki does not support all of HTML, what to do for markup that can't be > translated is a non-trivial question. > > > > >> >> That said, we know that there are people that prefer MediaWiki and we'll >>>> see if we can find a way to let people use some kind of tool that lets >>>> them >>>> paste MediaWiki syntax in and get it automatically converted into HTML. >>>> But >>>> that's not going to happen right away, since there are still some more >>>> fundamental site features we need to work on. >>>> >>>> I know this is frustrating to some people that prefer MediaWiki syntax, >>>> and we'll see what we can do. I just can't make any promises, and >>>> obviously >>>> anything we do manage to do won't be the same as a raw MediaWiki setup. >>>> >>>> Even just minimal basic support for some mediawiki markup would make it >>> more convenient for me to type documents in, than to have to type in HTML >>> or use a WYSIWYG editor. >>> >>>> I'm surprised you hadn't heard of Kuma; we've been talking about it at >>>> length for over a year, including posts to this very mailing list asking >>>> for people to help us test it. This makes me feel sad since we worked so >>>> hard to get the word out. :) >>>> >>>> Nah, I don't read mailing lists carefully enough and I don't contribute >>> much to MDN, so this only speaks of my own ignorance. >>> >>> Thanks for taking care of MDN! >>> Benoit >>> >>> >>> >>> Eric Shepherd >>>> Developer Documentation Lead >>>> Mozilla >>>> http://www.bitstampede.com/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dev-platform mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> dev-platform mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-platform mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >> > > > > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
