On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> the wiki syntax must go away,
>
{{citation needed}}
> and will go away.
{{citation needed}}
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedi
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> quiddity, 25/10/2014 20:26:
>
>> We don't have HTML preview, which might be interesting. Surely it's
>> possible to whip up a userscript for it, if anyone would actually find it
>> massively useful. (Or, we can just leave the browser'
quiddity, 25/10/2014 20:26:
We don't have HTML preview, which might be interesting. Surely it's
possible to whip up a userscript for it, if anyone would actually find it
massively useful. (Or, we can just leave the browser's own Web Developer
bar open to see the HTML. ctrl-f is our friend.)
Are
On 10/25/2014 03:38 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> (That's just me fantasizing; Parsoid people may
> have a different idea.)
Parsoid, AFAIK, represents marked up articles as very strict HTML with
Mediawiki-specific attributes - exactly what is needed to maintain a
sane and consistent machine readabl
I haven't had that experience with lightweight markup around here. The
humanities, journalism, and creative-writing academics are the ones who
seem to be the most enthusiastic adopters of Markdown in particular.
It's taking off quite a bit as part of a simplify/concentrate movement,
where peopl
People Who Are Able to Edit Articles But Not to Code dismiss wiki syntax
much more than I do.
Most of them don't even bother to begin to understand it. The few who do
are a rare exception. A wiki syntax IDE will not "go a long way", as the
article says, in helping them edit. They will still be for
Oh, it will remain, just internally. Maybe some day it will be replaced
with pure XML, but that day is far away, and by the time it happens editors
aren't supposed to care. (That's just me fantasizing; Parsoid people may
have a different idea.)
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
Keep in mind that the projects on Y are brainstorms/seeds -- so it is
important to keep that in perspective. By the time they've evolved they
often look radically different.
That said I think there is kernel of truth there. Our components solve
often every problem with one solution. We do need a w
On 10/25/14, 7:20 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
Because, even though I'm well aware of the fact that lots of experienced
wikipedians love wiki syntax, the wiki syntax must go away, and will go
away. Maybe in five years, maybe ten, maybe twenty. But it will go away.
Investing effort in an IDE for it
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Andy Mabbett
wrote:
> On 25 October 2014 15:09, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
[...]
> >
> https://medium.com/@MrJamesFisher/wikipedia-needs-an-ide-not-a-wysiwyg-editor-7acd85b582c8
>
> Quite apart from other issues, the author falls at the first hurdle;
> he fails to say
On Oct 25, 2014 8:03 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni"
wrote:
>
> Perpetuating it with a dedicated IDE wouldn't help it go away.
I doubt that. Side by side wikitext and result, making you see the result
of either in the other in real time could help adoption of wysiwyg
techniques, help improve them, and help
Perpetuating it with a dedicated IDE wouldn't help it go away.
בתאריך 25 באוק 2014 20:51, "Martijn Hoekstra"
כתב:
> On Oct 25, 2014 7:20 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni"
> wrote:
> >
> > Because, even though I'm well aware of the fact that lots of experienced
> > wikipedians love wiki syntax, the wiki synt
On Oct 25, 2014 7:20 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni"
wrote:
>
> Because, even though I'm well aware of the fact that lots of experienced
> wikipedians love wiki syntax, the wiki syntax must go away, and will go
> away. Maybe in five years, maybe ten, maybe twenty. But it will go away.
> Investing effort in
I'm not very confident to say the author is completely right/wrong but the
words
the IDE would update display the source and the HTML together, and update
the HTML inrealtime. Source on the left, HTML on the right.
made me feel interested.
If wikitext editor could display and update the result
Because, even though I'm well aware of the fact that lots of experienced
wikipedians love wiki syntax, the wiki syntax must go away, and will go
away. Maybe in five years, maybe ten, maybe twenty. But it will go away.
Investing effort in an IDE for it is pointless.
Templates are, indeed, programs.
On 25 October 2014 15:09, Kim Bruning wrote:
> I spotted this article linked from news.ycombinator.com,
> arguing -well- what it says on the tin. ;-)
>
> Apologies if someone else already posted a link.
>
>
> https://medium.com/@MrJamesFisher/wikipedia-needs-an-ide-not-a-wysiwyg-editor-7
On Oct 25, 2014 6:17 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni"
wrote:
>
> Thank goodness this wasn't written five years ago, otherwise somebody
could
> get the awful idea to implement it.
Having a side by side really time wikitext - display doesn't sound like an
aweful idea at all to me. I'm quite surprised anyone w
Thank goodness this wasn't written five years ago, otherwise somebody could
get the awful idea to implement it.
בתאריך 25 באוק 2014 18:26, "Kim Bruning" כתב:
> I spotted this article linked from news.ycombinator.com,
> arguing -well- what it says on the tin. ;-)
>
> Apologies if someone else alre
I spotted this article linked from news.ycombinator.com,
arguing -well- what it says on the tin. ;-)
Apologies if someone else already posted a link.
https://medium.com/@MrJamesFisher/wikipedia-needs-an-ide-not-a-wysiwyg-editor-7acd85b582c8
I'm not sure . Well, if we allow lua in templa
19 matches
Mail list logo
