Help talk:ProofWiki Extension
I've seen that the <section> tag is used on some help pages. As a result, no table of contents is produced. Should we keep it this way, or remove the tag from those pages? --barto (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
- Section tags were invented by me to have some way of auto-incrementing heading levels upon transclusion, which vastly simplifies a structured, consistent way of having heading levels while maintaining transcludability. Sadly I have had no time to resolve the issue with the TOC. It's a MediaWiki architectural pain, but I want to address it some day. Meanwhile I think it would be a waste to remove the Section tags. Is this bearable for you? I know of this restriction; also why I have been reluctant in applying it. — Lord_Farin (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
With the transclude template, there seems to be a considerably larger delay (>4h) for edits to a transclude page to take effect on the transclusion page. It may be that it's not a general fact and that I'm looking at an exceptional case. (The transclusion of Help:Page Editing at Help:Editing) --barto (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2017 (EDT)
- These updates are scheduled and processed using a job mechanism triggered on a fraction of page views. You can force it by selecting top menu option More -> Purge. Please contact Joe if you don't see it; it should be available for all privileged users. Hope that helps. — Lord_Farin (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
Combining <section> with transclusion
Can <section> tags be transcluded? I.e. are all templates included after {{transclude:}} has done its work, or can some be included before? (This is the main issue with LST.) --barto (talk) (contribs) 12:54, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
- I'm not sure I'm getting your question. Can you illustrate with a practical situation? — Lord_Farin (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
- Say template A contains <section> tags, and A is transcluded at page B, and B is transcluded at C via {{transclude:}}. Will {{transclude:}} see the <section> tags, or does it only see the tags that are in the originial wikitext source of B? --barto (talk) (contribs) 13:10, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
- Ah, you ask about the interplay between regular and extension transclusion. From past experience I would expect C to see the section tags, because content is first completely transcluded (regularly) before parsing (also section tags) begins. — Lord_Farin (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
- Unfortunately not: User:Barto/Sandbox/sectag --barto (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
- Hm, but what you try there does not make much sense to me tbh. After all, page B does not contain the "textatA" section in its source. By this reasoning I cannot increase functionality on A without worrying that the transclusion on B would break (because of naming conflicts etc). It seems to me that this would break more than it would bring (in case of necessity, an encompassing section tag can be placed around the transclusion; obviously ugly, but works without breaking scope isolation). I could even imagine adding this effect as an extra optional argument to the transclusion (tc-section = textatA). — Lord_Farin (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
- Okay. The idea is to use a fixed template A to store text in a labeled section (created by A) at any page B, and retrieve it from any page C. So no section tag would appear at any page except the template A. There appear to exist some experimental extensions that implement this, but I was hoping our extension could. --barto (talk) (contribs) 10:43, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
- Hm, but what you try there does not make much sense to me tbh. After all, page B does not contain the "textatA" section in its source. By this reasoning I cannot increase functionality on A without worrying that the transclusion on B would break (because of naming conflicts etc). It seems to me that this would break more than it would bring (in case of necessity, an encompassing section tag can be placed around the transclusion; obviously ugly, but works without breaking scope isolation). I could even imagine adding this effect as an extra optional argument to the transclusion (tc-section = textatA). — Lord_Farin (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
- Unfortunately not: User:Barto/Sandbox/sectag --barto (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
- Ah, you ask about the interplay between regular and extension transclusion. From past experience I would expect C to see the section tags, because content is first completely transcluded (regularly) before parsing (also section tags) begins. — Lord_Farin (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
- Say template A contains <section> tags, and A is transcluded at page B, and B is transcluded at C via {{transclude:}}. Will {{transclude:}} see the <section> tags, or does it only see the tags that are in the originial wikitext source of B? --barto (talk) (contribs) 13:10, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
Do I understand correctly if the <section> tag serves only as an anchor for {{transclude:}}? --barto (talk) (contribs) 12:54, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
- As the page describes, section tags are currently used for transclusion and folding. Folding examples are not so commonly used, but there are a few instances. — Lord_Farin (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
Transclude empty title
I've noticed that when an empty title is passed as argument to {{transclude:}}, it gives a fatal error and discards the edit. (Previous page content is not lost.) Is there a way to catch this error and for example return an empty string? --barto (talk) (contribs) 07:55, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
- This is definitely possible. I haven't changed anything to the extension in a longer time, so Joe and I would have to reinstantiate the development mechanism, but it would be an improvement indeed (catchable, localised error instead of a fatal one).
- If we collect the different ideas I might be able to find the time to have a look at all of them and address them at once. — Lord_Farin (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
- Zou tof zijn. We could also make notitle=true by default (that is, simply remove the parameter). --barto (talk) (contribs) 11:14, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
- You may suspect I'm trying to make our tag look like the implementation by LST. You're right. I'm thinking, if one day LST is deemed beneficial for us, It'd be nice not having to change a lot (nothing?) to our usage of the tag so as to make the transition easier. --barto (talk) (contribs) 11:14, 27 October 2017 (EDT)