On 05/20/2014 02:46 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote: > My main reason for recycling the <html> tag was to not introduce a new tag > extension. <domparse> may occur verbatim in existing wikitext, and would break > when the tag is introduces.
The only existing mentions of this are probably us discussing it ;) In any case, it's easy to grep for it & nowikify existing uses. > Other than that, I'm find with outputting whatever tag you like for the > transclusion. Great! > Implementing the tag is something else, though - I could implement > it so it will work for HTML transclusion, but I'm not sure I understand the > original domparse stuff well enough to get that right. Would domparse be in > core, btw? Yes, it should be in core. I believe that a very simple implementation (without actual DOM balancing, using Parser::recursiveTagParse()) would not be too hard. The guts of it are described in [1]. The limitations of recursiveTagParse should not matter much for this use case. >> Now back to the syntax. Encoding complex transclusions in a HTML parameter >> would be rather cumbersome, and would entail a lot of attribute-specific >> escaping. > > Why would it involve any escaping? It should be handled as a tag extension, > like > any other. Transclusions can contain quotes, which need to be escaped in attribute values to make sure that the attribute is in fact an attribute. Since quotes tend to be more common than <domparse> tags this means that there's going to be more escaping. I also find it harder to scan for quotes ending a long attribute value. Tags are easier to spot. >> $wgRawHtml is disabled in all wikis we are currently interested in. >> MediaWiki does properly report the <html> extension tag from siteinfo when >> $wgRawHtml is enabled, so it ought to work with Parsoid for private wikis. >> It will be harder to support the <html >> transclusion="<transclusions>"></html> exception. > > I should try what expandtemplates does with <html> with $wgRawHtml enabled. > Nothing, probably. It will just come back containing raw HTML. Which would be > fine, I think. Yes, that case will work. But $wgRawHtml enabled is the exception, and not something I'd like to encourage. > By the way: once we agree on a mechanism, it would be trivial to use the same > mechanism for special page transclusion. My patch actually already covers > that. > Do you agree that this is the Right Thing? It's just transclusion of HTML > content, after all. Yes, that sounds good to me. Gabriel [1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Tag_extensions#How_do_I_render_wikitext_in_my_extension.3F _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
