Yeah, the local CSS/JS cruft is definitely a problem. I've tried doing
clean-up on a few wikis, but I usually just get chewed out by the local
admins for not discussing every change in detail (which obviously
doesn't scale for fixing 200+ wikis). I would love to hear ideas for how
to address
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Yeah, the local CSS/JS cruft is definitely a problem. I've tried doing
clean-up on a few wikis, but I usually just get chewed out by the local
admins for not discussing every change in detail (which obviously
doesn't scale for fixing 200+ wikis). I would love to hear
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
In case no one has mentioned this, changing the DOCTYPE has a pretty
huge effect on how CSS gets rendered. Wikimedia's current DOCTYPE (XHTML
transitional) maps to almost standards mode or limited quirks mode
in
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:22 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
.
I started a whole thread on it back in 2009 before I changed it:
I went ahead and asked my EMPs if I could take a couple days to do an
assessment of what CSS will be affected by the switch to HTML5. The
request was granted and I should have some time to work on it next week.
My apologies for being so aggressive on this issue, as it will probably
turn out to
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Your analysis of the effects of the DOCTYPE change is not correct. As
Entlinkt tried to point out at the HTML5 page on mediawiki.org, inline
images, inline-blocks and inline-tables can also be affected (even outside
In case no one has mentioned this, changing the DOCTYPE has a pretty
huge effect on how CSS gets rendered. Wikimedia's current DOCTYPE (XHTML
transitional) maps to almost standards mode or limited quirks mode
in Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, IE8 and IE9. Changing to !DOCTYPE
html will switch
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
In case no one has mentioned this, changing the DOCTYPE has a pretty
huge effect on how CSS gets rendered. Wikimedia's current DOCTYPE (XHTML
transitional) maps to almost standards mode or limited quirks mode
in Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, IE8 and IE9. Changing to
On 3/28/11 7:53 PM, Chad wrote:
It *was* reverted, it hasn't been deployed again since.
Well, it still seems to be in place on truck, which is why I'm getting
CSS bug reports. Can someone revert it on trunk as well?
The brief discussion of the CSS rendering-mode issue on Mediawiki.org
seems
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 3/28/11 7:53 PM, Chad wrote:
It *was* reverted, it hasn't been deployed again since.
Well, it still seems to be in place on truck, which is why I'm getting CSS
bug reports. Can someone revert it on trunk as well?
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, it still seems to be in place on truck, which is why I'm getting
CSS bug reports. Can someone revert it on trunk as well?
The brief discussion of the CSS rendering-mode issue on Mediawiki.org
seems to be nicely
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, it still seems to be in place on truck, which is why I'm getting
CSS bug reports. Can someone revert it on trunk as well?
Which bug reports? can you link to some in Bz or the like please?
So which rendering mode should I be vetting CSS for? Strict or limited
quirks? Some of the CSS that I review is specifically tweaked for
limited quirks since that's what the Wikimedia sites are running in.
Honestly, I don't know all of the problems that this change will cause.
I imagine it
Hello!
What is the current concensus on HTML5?
Are we going to fully support it and use as many features as we can or
are we going to keep just using javascript alterntives?
I would assume that we would continue to use javascript in the case
that the client does not support HTML5, though that may
Joseph Roberts wrote:
Hello!
What is the current concensus on HTML5?
Are we going to fully support it and use as many features as we can or
are we going to keep just using javascript alterntives?
I would assume that we would continue to use javascript in the case
that the client does not
On 22.03.2011, 19:05 Joseph wrote:
Hello!
What is the current concensus on HTML5?
Are we going to fully support it and use as many features as we can or
are we going to keep just using javascript alterntives?
I would assume that we would continue to use javascript in the case
that the
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com wrote:
As the matter of fact, MediaWiki serves HTML5 by default. The only
reason why it is still not enabled on Wikipedia is backward
compatibility with numerous screen-scraping scripts/tools. However,
they had their last
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com wrote:
As the matter of fact, MediaWiki serves HTML5 by default. The only
reason why it is still not enabled on Wikipedia is backward
compatibility with numerous screen-scraping scripts/tools. However,
they had their last
K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote in message
news:aanlktinanrjcoho_0rac4amfs3gt98hkr0nz2yzpk...@mail.gmail.com...
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
As the matter of fact, MediaWiki serves HTML5 by default. The only
reason why it is still not
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Joseph Roberts
roberts.jos...@ntlworld.com wrote:
What is the current concensus on HTML5?
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/HTML5
Are we going to fully support it and use as many features as we can or
are we going to keep just using javascript alterntives?
We're
20 matches
Mail list logo
