Last modified: 2014-03-09 11:49:18 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 4210 - Display a "Valid XHTML" icon if the XHTML happens to be valid
Display a "Valid XHTML" icon if the XHTML happens to be valid
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
Extensions requests (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Lowest enhancement with 1 vote (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
http://uitest.com/en/analysis/
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-12-08 01:36 UTC by Brian Jason Drake
Modified: 2014-03-09 11:49 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Brian Jason Drake 2005-12-08 01:36:02 UTC
We are using XHTML 1.0 Transitional - I presume we are using valid XHTML. If so, we 
should have an option in the software to add an XHTML icon, which individual wikis 
can customize using skins.

I suggest having an option to not display the icon because if the icon is always 
there, it will be downloaded even if not displayed.
Comment 1 Rob Church 2005-12-08 08:01:53 UTC
If people want one, they will add it. We're already adding a "powered by
MediaWiki" icon, and we don't really want to clutter up the UI.
Comment 2 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2005-12-08 08:06:03 UTC
The parser is not guarenteed to output valid XHTML, see open parser bugs and
some parser tests which fail.
Comment 3 Rob Church 2005-12-08 10:47:21 UTC
I knew there was another reason. ;-)
Comment 4 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2005-12-08 10:52:18 UTC
One could make an extension that did this however, and If one wanted to do it
properly one would pass the output through some validator (for instance the w3c
html validator which is freely avalible) before displaying it, REOPENING and
putting it into extension requests.
Comment 5 Brian Jason Drake 2005-12-09 01:06:46 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> If people want one, they will add it. We're already adding a "powered 
byMediaWiki" icon, and we don't really want to clutter up the UI.

Why don't we want one? I thought XHTML was part of an effort to reduce the 
computational power required to view pages, which makes information more 
accessible, which is the point of this foundation.
Comment 6 Brian Jason Drake 2005-12-09 01:12:22 UTC
The new URL has links to 2 XHTML validators, including the W3C validator, at the 
time of writing and is linked to from both [[en:HTML]] and [[en:XHTML]].
Comment 7 Rowan Collins [IMSoP] 2005-12-09 01:22:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> Why don't we want one? I thought XHTML was part of an effort to reduce the 
> computational power required to view pages, which makes information more 
> accessible, which is the point of this foundation.

But do we need a button saying "this is XHTML" in order to gain this
accessibility? And is determining which pages are and which aren't valid
actually useful, other than for finding weak points in the code? Or would it be
better to work on guaranteeing that the output was *always* valid, whether or
not we put a human-readable blob in the UI saying so.

Comment 8 Brian Jason Drake 2005-12-09 01:39:02 UTC
No, we don't need that icon. I am suggesting that it would promote XHTML, 
however. We promote the organisation and the software (with icons), so why not 
promote the language - isn't it just as important?

Yes, we should work on guaranteeing that the output is *always* valid. However, 
is this a realistic aim? We have not succeeded yet.
Comment 9 Rowan Collins [IMSoP] 2005-12-09 03:35:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> No, we don't need that icon. I am suggesting that it would promote XHTML, 
> however. We promote the organisation and the software (with icons), so why not 
> promote the language - isn't it just as important?

I'm not sure it is as important, really. After all, the canonical version of our
content is in an ad-hoc non-standardised syntax defined only by the program it
has "evolved" in tandem with.

> Yes, we should work on guaranteeing that the output is *always* valid. However, 
> is this a realistic aim? We have not succeeded yet.

Until we do so, though, isn't almost hypocritical to "promote" XHTML - i.e.
encouraging others to obtain a standard we have failed to reach.

I mean, I'm not dead against doing any of this; it just seems rather a waste of
time/effort.
Comment 10 Rob Church 2005-12-09 07:41:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> Why don't we want one? I thought XHTML was part of an effort to reduce the 
> computational power required to view pages, which makes information more 
> accessible, which is the point of this foundation.

...well the design of the icon might not fit with the user's skin, for starters.
Slapping images about for the sake of it is a Bad Idea. To my mind, it's a
rather cosmetic change. As Rowan says, it seems like a waste of time and effort.
Comment 11 Brian Jason Drake 2005-12-20 04:11:59 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)

>> ...so why not promote the language - isn't it just as important?

> I'm not sure it is as important, really. [snip]

Really? Without the language, isn't the content no more useful than a Chinese 
text to someone who only knows English?

> Until we do so, though, isn't almost hypocritical to "promote" XHTML - i.e.
encouraging others to obtain a standard we have failed to reach.

The question is not whether we have reached this standard but rather how hard we 
are trying to do so.
Comment 12 Brian Jason Drake 2005-12-20 04:14:52 UTC
(In reply to comment #10)

> ...well the design of the icon might not fit with the user's skin, for starters.

That could be said of any icon.

> Slapping images about for the sake of it is a Bad Idea. 

It's not for the sake of it.

> To my mind, it's a rather cosmetic change.

Won't some people say that for any icon?

> As Rowan says, it seems like a waste of time and effort.

Having the "valid XHTML" icon will help promote the language, as explained above.

It will also help find bugs in the software. How else are people finding the 
XHTML issues?
Comment 13 Rowan Collins [IMSoP] 2005-12-20 17:01:30 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)
> Really? Without the language, isn't the content no more useful than a Chinese 
> text to someone who only knows English?

But our content isn't *in* XHTML, it's in an ad hoc markup language we call
"wikitext"; without a proper parser (which arguably we have not yet got), it is
indeed like being in a foreign language. Our imperfect "translation" into XHTML
may be an *attempt* to make it easier to process, but it's not really anything
to boast about right now.

Anyone wanting to machine-process our content right now is as likely to play
with the wikitext as the XHTML output; once we've got tools that can
consistently produce meaningful XML (and other) formats, it will be worth
pointing these out to people.

As a debugging tool, I see a little more merit, but it may be that a properly
structured wiki2xml parser (as started by Magnus Manske) will make all those
issues redundant anyway.
Comment 14 Brian Jason Drake 2005-12-21 01:58:11 UTC
(In reply to comment #13)

> But our content isn't *in* XHTML

As far as most readers are conerned, it is. Most readers never see the wikitext.
Comment 15 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2005-12-21 02:02:20 UTC
Why is this extension request RESOLVED LATER? There's no reason why it couldn't
be implemented now...
Comment 16 Brian Jason Drake 2005-12-21 02:18:08 UTC
(In reply to comment #15)
> Why is this extension request RESOLVED LATER? There's no reason why it couldn't 
be implemented now...

If I had to guess, I would say that "resolution" indicates we intend to fix it 
eventually, but we have more important things to do first.

But then no one would ever see it, as it was resolved, so how would we remember?
Comment 17 Rowan Collins [IMSoP] 2005-12-21 12:58:08 UTC
(In reply to comment #14)
> > But our content isn't *in* XHTML
> As far as most readers are conerned, it is. Most readers never see the wikitext.

True. I guess what I was thinking was that most of our *reusers* (to whom we're
promoting our reusability) get the wikitext and do something with that (though
this may well involve running it through MediaWiki's "parser" to produce some
form of HTML). Ideally, they'd be able to get something more standard, and as I
say the most likely avenue for this is Magnus's XML parser, for which there will
hopefully be front-ends for things like DocBook and ODF as well as XHTML.

I still think it seems weird to talk of "promoting" a standard we're not sure we
actually adhere to.
Comment 18 Brian Jason Drake 2005-12-22 05:32:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #17)

> I still think it seems weird to talk of "promoting" a standard we're not sure we
actually adhere to.

But I am sure we are making significant progress. Some people promote things that 
don't actually exist yet.
Comment 19 Brion Vibber 2006-06-04 00:51:51 UTC
If you really want this there are browser plugins that can 
do it for you.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links