On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Maury Markowitz
maury.markow...@gmail.com wrote:
I used to think that too. Then I looked at the examples on the wiki
page on the issue. Although I find TeX rather opaque, a much worst
issue is obscurity through verbosity, which not only makes the formula
Take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headway
Note that when the HTML renderer has to make a fraction, it leaves way
too much whitespace between the numerator and denominator. I realize
why this is happening, but can't this be adjusted with CSS?
Maury
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
We'd be talking about translating LaTeX input to MathML output
automatically here -- no MathML input in the wikitext.
Ahhh, I get it. And yes, that does make sense to me.
Hey all,
The Google Summer of Code 2011 program has been announced [0]. I'm assuming
the WMF will be participating like last years; can someone confirm this so
the GSoC 2011 page [1] can be updated?
Fun fact: since that page exists since last GSoC, it's now one of the top
results when doing a
Happy-melon wrote:
Eeeww
What's any different between this and a {{#author: }} parser function apart
from the inability to access it from the wikitext? As noted, it's perfectly
possible for the data to be in a separate field on the upload form, either
by default or by per-wiki
On 01/22/2011 01:15 PM, Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
Handling metadata separately from wikitext provides two main
advantages: it is much more user friendly, and it allows us to
properly validate and parse data.
This assumes wikitext is simply a formatting language, really its a data
storage,
Hi,
We got the email validation stuff sorted out properly tonight. We even
have javascript tests (thanks Krinkle)!
Revisions got reviewed by Brion and bugs 959 22449 are now fixed.
I opened bug https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/26910 as a merge request for
Roan.
Thanks everyone!
--
Ashar
Out of interest, do you know what percentage of emails in the database
don't validate under the new scheme?
Conrad
On 24 January 2011 13:55, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
We got the email validation stuff sorted out properly tonight. We even
have javascript tests (thanks
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Conrad Irwin conrad.ir...@gmail.comwrote:
Out of interest, do you know what percentage of emails in the database
don't validate under the new scheme?
That's actually a wise thing to check -- most fails will probably be
legitimately bogus entries, but if we can
Before I respond to the recent new ideas, concepts and suggestions.
I'd like to
explain a few things about the backend (atleast the way it's currently
planned to be)
The mw_authors table contains unique authors by either a name or a
userid.
And optionally a custom attribution can be given
It would seem that the bugzilla
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23710
would fall under that category, and to note that it is still marked as
new. Can it be tied to this process?
Regards, Andrew
Quoting Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Conrad
Brion Vibber wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Conrad Irwin conrad.ir...@gmail.comwrote:
Out of interest, do you know what percentage of emails in the database
don't validate under the new scheme?
That's actually a wise thing to check -- most fails will probably be
legitimately
Krinkle wrote:
Before I respond to the recent new ideas, concepts and suggestions.
I'd like to
explain a few things about the backend (atleast the way it's currently
planned to be)
The mw_authors table contains unique authors by either a name or a
userid.
And optionally a custom
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Billinghurst billinghu...@gmail.comwrote:
It would seem that the bugzilla
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23710
would fall under that category, and to note that it is still marked as
new. Can it be tied to this process?
That's an issue
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
The original spec had feedback based precisely on enwiki numbers.
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-August/00.html
So about 100? Note that there are invalid addresses marked as confirmed
in
15 matches
Mail list logo
