@Micru: I like semi-automated, user-driven procedures much more than
bot-automated procedures. I.e.: our it.source Index pages use a tl|Sommario
for any ns0 section, with following parameters:
nome= full name of ns0 page
titolo= title for ns0 page (to be displayed only)
from= number of djvu page where ns0 begins
delta= delta between djvu page and book page
These data are almost sufficient (with some ajax) to self-compililing all
the needed code when creating a new ns0 subpage, compiling both our header
template (tl|IncludiIntestazione) and pages tag. Needed to= parameter of
pages tag is calculated (it is simply the number of djvu page of following
tl|Sommario -1) and navigation templates are calculated from preceeding and
following tl|Sommario. But creation of the page is not fully automated:
ns0auto() script is invoked by the user in edit mode, so that the user can
verify and test resulting code and fix it if needed.
What I'm thinking about is, to so something similar by a Lua script,
reading Modulo:Dati which is aligned with Index: page data (yes, I presume
by a #irc bot and I presently working to write the needed code). So, this
procedure will be semi-automated, since page creation would be a
user-driven procedure.
Alex
2013/6/7 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andre...@gmail.com>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:36 AM, David Cuenca <dacu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Automatic creation of page transclusion is nice but also dangerous... too
>> many structures to have an easy solution.
>
>
> What Alex is thinking, if I understand his work correctly, is that when
> you work on a new book in nsPage,
> you "define" what the structure is (his work right now is wrapping
> titles/chapters in {{title}} templates, to give the book a logic
> structure), and then a bot runs, create corrispondent ns0 chapters and
> transclude pages.
>
> I think that ns0 automation is something long needed, as we could suggest
> users to focus just on nsPage and Indexes. All the difficult transclusion
> part would be automatic (or semi-automatic).
>
> I wonder if there is a better way to define the logic structure of our
> book, maybe directly in the Index page.
> I don't know what would be easier for the user:
> * define the table of content once for all in the Index page
> * define the table of content once in the book Toc (there is often one, if
> not always, when needed)
> * define the table of content just putting templates thorough the book, as
> the reader goes through the book.
>
> What do you all think?
>
> Aubrey
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikisource-l mailing list
> Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
