On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Platonides 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 wikipedia.
>
Ok so
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Billinghurst wrote:
> 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 about clickable links
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 cus
Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Conrad Irwin wrote:
>
>> 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,
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 :
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Conrad Irwin 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 attribution can be given (f
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Conrad Irwin wrote:
> 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 find any that don't
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 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We got the email validation stuff sorted out properly tonight. We even
> have javascript tests (thanks Krinkle)!
>
> Revisi
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 Vou
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, struc
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-w
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 Goo
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Aryeh Gregor
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.
___
Wikitech-l mailing l
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 Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Maury Markowitz
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
> difficult to understand, but
15 matches
Mail list logo
