On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 6:05 PM, <thoma...@gmx.de> wrote: > I guess you also mean "see multiple scans at once". This would be another > workaround, but it would not deter contributors from trying to leave the text > where it was in the first place, and where we think it belongs.
Why do you think it belongs split across separate pages, instead of in one place, when it's logically one unit? And why do you think there'd by any big added risk that people won't obey Wikisource conventions in transcription? To the contrary: if you add a new magic <ref> attribute, *nobody* will be able to figure out the right way to do it unless they're told, because this will be the only place in any wiki anywhere where that attribute is actually used. If you do a multi-page approach, then at least proofreaders don't have to remember anything extra on a technical level. > We have been dealing with this problem for several years now, and all the > solutions that we have found have drawbacks. I do not think that we can solve > this without extending the tool that manages references. You've made a reasonable case that *some* software change is needed. However, I think you've got the wrong one. Trying to add this weird special-case feature to Cite, which is totally useless unless you're using ProofreadPage in the particular way Wikisource is using it, loses major points for inelegance, complexity, and mixing extensions together. If the use-case can be adequately addressed by just having ProofreadPage display multiple scans and edit boxes on one page, that would be a much simpler and more intuitive solution. Not only that, but you could also stop using magic templates to split words across pages and things like that, so it would be considerably easier to use. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
