https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59818
James Forrester <jforres...@wikimedia.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
See Also|https://bugzilla.wikimedia. |
|org/show_bug.cgi?id=50883 |
Blocks|2007, 54363 |
Depends on|48429, 50172, 51154, 51899, |
|52141, 59229, 59885 |
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from James Forrester <jforres...@wikimedia.org> ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> At some point VisualEditor should be enabled in the remaining namespace.
{{cn}} :-)
Right now I believe that VE is enabled on Wikipedias like enwiki in all
namespaces except:
1. the Talk namespaces;
2. the Project namespace (Wikipedia:);
3. the Lua namespace (Module:);
4. the Template namespace; and
5. the MediaWiki namespace.
There are some (related) reasons for these:
1. We don't ever intend for VisualEditor to be a good tool for editing signed
content; the goals of a content editor with indenting and insertion do not mesh
with those of a discussion editor. Instead, Flow will provide a VisualEditor
surface for commenting in a proper system that makes sense. Enabling VE for
talk namespaces on the WMF cluster is a WONTFIX from my point of view.
2. The Project namespace contains a great deal of signed content, and so is not
currently appropriate for VisualEditor per the reasoning above. Once Flow is
fully up and running, switching VisualEditor on for the remaining
(non-discussional) content is just a matter of flicking a switch. However, the
point where Flow has replaced all Project namespace uses of signed content is
probably a long way away.
3. Lua code already has its own editor (quite why it has its own namespace
instead of sitting as a ContentHandler object in the MediaWiki namespace like
CSS and JS I don't know); VE doesn't add anything there.
4. Templates are messy agglomerations of partial wikitext and lots of
transclusion calls. I'm not sure VE would shine at its best here. We could
enable it if you really think it would be useful (and can show community
approval), though…
5. Similarly, MediaWiki messages often contain messy partial wikitext (let
alone partial HTML), and we are after all trying to discourage its use.
On the particular "blocking" bugs:
* bug 48429 – I don't see how this prevents VE from being deployed to further
namespaces; it's mainly a problem in the content namespace (where it's already
deployed), and would be in discussions (where we're not going to deploy it).
* bug 50172 – Again, I don't see how this prevents VE from being deployed to
further namespaces, given that it's mainly a problem between content, Draft and
User (where it's deployed now).
* bug 51154 – Though this would be necessary for deploying to Talk namespaces,
see above.
* bug 51899 – I don't understand how this blocks VE from being deployed to
further namespaces.
* bug 52141 – Same here.
* bug 59229 – Yet another reason why we don't want to enable VE in discussions.
* bug 59885 – This is currently only a super-class for bug 48429, and is not
actually blocking deployment to the Draft: namespace because that happened.
Consequently, I'm going to remove the dependencies and close this bug as
INVALID. Happy to re-open if I'm wrong, though. :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
