On 4 May 2011 08:19, Krinkle <[email protected]> wrote: > Op 3 mei 2011, om 22:56 heeft Ryan Lane het volgende geschreven: > >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Trevor Parscal >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On it's own, it would be essentially useless. >>> >> >> The parser has a configuration state, takes wikitext in, and gives >> back html. It pulls additional data from the database in these steps >> as well, yes. However, I don't see how this would be different than >> any other implementation of the parser. All implementations will >> require configuration state, and will need to deal with things like >> templates and extensions. >> >> Though I prefer the concept of alternative parsers (for all the >> reasons mentioned in the other threads), I do think having our >> reference implementation available as a library is a good concept. I >> feel that making it available in a suitable license is ideal. >> >> - Ryan >> > > Afaik parser does not need a database or extension hooks for minimum but > fully operational use. > > {{unknown templates}} default to redlinks, > {{int:messages}} default to <unknown>, > <tags> and {{#functions}} default to literals, > {{MAGICWORDS}} to red links, > etc... > > If a user of the parser would not have any of these (either none > existing or no > registry / database configured at all). It would fallback to the > behaviour as if > they are inexistant, not a problem ?
I agree a parser would not need a database but it would need a standard interface or abstraction that in the full MediaWiki would call to the database. Offline readers would implement this interface to extract the wikitext from their compressed format or direct from an XML dump file. Some datamining tools might just stub this interface and deal with the bare minimum. Extension hooks are more interesting. I might assume offline readers want as close results to the official sites as possible so will want to implement the same hooks. Other non-wikitext or non-page data from the database would also go into the same interface/abstraction, or a separate one. Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail) > By having this available as a parser sites that host blogs and forums > could potentially use wikitext to format their comments and forum > threads > (to avoid visitors from having to for example learn Wikitext for their > wiki, > WYSIWYM WYMeditor for WordPress and BBCode for a forum). > > Instead they could all be the same syntax. And within wiki context > magic words, extensions, int messages etc. would be fed from the wiki > database, > outside just static. > > -- > Krinkle > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
