It wouldn't be all that hard. Elements are either "inline" or "block"
elements. Inline elements insert into the text flow, while text flows around
block elements. If we make the distinction as simple as that, and disallow
all methods of positioning other than that which is natively available in
wik
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> I think this has been brought up before, but a thought I've had: Apart from
> the fact that it will require a ton of work in coding, what would keep us
> from separating templates (and, for that matter, images) from the article
> text? Article text would exist by itself, an
I think this has been brought up before, but a thought I've had: Apart from
the fact that it will require a ton of work in coding, what would keep us
from separating templates (and, for that matter, images) from the article
text? Article text would exist by itself, and categories, templates, imag
Right. Wikipedia is about interesting and useful information, not about
coding.
Fred Bauder
> Really good points. I still advocate moving the possibility for these
> "ugly" constructs to templates, so that we keep all the magic tricks
> we have now, but lose the ability to make an article that is
Really good points. I still advocate moving the possibility for these
"ugly" constructs to templates, so that we keep all the magic tricks
we have now, but lose the ability to make an article that is "write
only" by littering it with code that only the wikigods and the parser
itself could decypher.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> Let me riff on what you're saying here (partly just to confirm that I
> understand fully what you're saying). It'd be very cool to have the
> ability to declare a single article, or probably more helpfully, a
> single revision of an article
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> Let me riff on what you're saying here (partly just to confirm that I
> understand fully what you're saying). It'd be very cool to have the
> ability to declare a single article, or probably more helpfully, a
> single revision of an article
Hi Brion,
Thanks for laying out the problem so clearly! I agree wholeheartedly
that we need to avoid thinking about this problem too narrowly as a
user interface issue on top of existing markup+templates. More
inline:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> This isn't a problem
How about attacking the problem by using something that already exists...
- The Wikimedia Foundation gets a lot of support from Google,
financially. How about we ask for some technology support as well? Google
has a completely plugin-independant JS-based editor in Google Docs, as well
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:43 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> e.g. Wikia has WYSIWYG editing and templates. They have a sort of
> solution to template editing in WYSIWYG. It's not great, but people
> sort of cope. How did they get there? What can be done to make it
> better, *conceptually*?
>
> What I'm
10 matches
Mail list logo
