https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=671
--- Comment #51 from S. McCandlish <smccandl...@gmail.com> 2010-07-25 21:31:04 UTC --- * On dfn and address: --- Comment #49 from Aryeh Gregor 2010-07-25 18:39:44 UTC --- > [reasonable summary of the debate, elided] > Counter-counter-counter-argument: . . . :( Right. It may not be helpful in places like this to play devil's advocate, since the other side is liable to take it seriously and argue against the position. :-/ > Phrased thus, I can see no serious argument for not whitelisting these tags. > It makes things more consistent if anything. I'll get some other developers' > opinions, and if no one objects, I'll go ahead and whitelist <address> and > <dfn>. Huzzah! * On kbd + samp --- Comment #49 from Aryeh Gregor 2010-07-25 18:39:44 UTC --- > As for <kbd> and <samp>, we may as well wait until that HTML5 bug is > resolved, which should be within a few months. This has waited 5.5 years, > so a few months more won't kill anyone. Works for me. At this point I'd sacrifice a goat or something to get even half of this resolved. * On other stuff: --- Comment #48 from Christopher Yeleighton 2010-07-25 08:42:53 UTC --- > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newt_Gingrich&oldid=375340399 Why would we do that? The text is question isn't a link, so it shouldn't be marked up as one. And doing so wouldn't fix anything, since there isn't anything in that syntax or its [mis]use that tells the parser "this is the defining instance", something that requires human judgment. --- Comment #49 from Aryeh Gregor 2010-07-25 18:39:44 UTC --- > It doesn't really matter, but you're not supposed to remove > blocking/dependencies once they're fixed. They're supposed to stay there. My bad. In my own uses of Bugzilla, we've simply removed dependencies after they become moot. Didn't realize WMF's wanted to keep them. I can see where it could be useful in a project this complex (fixed bugs show up struck-through, but can still be accessed, e.g. because maybe one wasn't fully fixed with regard to a blocked bug and needs re-opening). But one of them here is not, because this bug was listed as blocking another because of the abbr element, but that element has been whitelisted *and removed from this bug*, so this bug is no longer relevant to the other at all. > My proposal there doesn't affect <address>. Right. Should have written "Aryeh's proposal over there about two of them". HTMLWG: Okay, I can concede on that, if your HTML5 proposal is rejected AND you appeal the rejection AND the appeal looks like it might go somewhere. I would not want us to postpone implementation of kbd and samp for a year or more otherwise, though. Kind of a WP:SNOWBALL thing, really. But, I've already agreed that if there's genuine uncertainty, they shouldn't be implemented. --- Comment #50 from Michael Zajac 2010-07-25 18:53:33 UTC --- > Regarding use cases for the address element, I forgot to mention the best one: > to mark up a talk-page user sig. Definitely proper in HTML5 http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/address.html Some might question this application in HTML 4.01/XHTML 1.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#edef-ADDRESS since it vaguely refers to "a major part" of a page, whatever that means. HTML5 just says "section", which can be whatever you want it to be without any "major" or "minor" value-judgment baggage. Do we care? * On q in HTML5 having auto-generated quotation marks Ick. I wonder it we could actually expect editors to not put quotation marks in manually, or have MW work around it if they do? Sounds problematic (and again a good reason to fork that one into its own bug number). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. 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
