As described in T110909, extensions that process wikitext need native Parsoid equivalents so that the HTML markup for wikitext from those extensions is similar to the rest of the page, and also so that references that are page-global are handled properly.
This requires T55874 to be resolved as well.
| Status | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | None | T87532 Allow to add special characters to gallery | ||
| Open | None | T137286 Provide a full rich-text editing and options setting for <gallery>s in the visual editor | ||
| Open | None | T149596 Please add support for adding and editing alt text in the gallery tool | ||
| Open | Tchanders | T149602 Allow rich text editing of image captions in gallery dialog | ||
| Open | Tchanders | T150621 Update gallery dialog to work with Parsoid's native <gallery> implementation | ||
| Open | None | T110909 Parsoid tripped up by extensions that process wikitext | ||
| Open | None | T124876 Flow doesn't render <gallery> correctly | ||
| Resolved | Arlolra | T110910 Implement <gallery> extension natively inside Parsoid | ||
| Resolved | Arlolra | T55874 Add a generic extension registration mechanism |
https://github.com/Wikia/mediawiki-services-parsoid/pull/5/files is the wikia gallery extension implementation which we might be able to start with.
Change 264026 had a related patch set uploaded (by Arlolra):
WIP: Native <gallery> extension
Change 264026 had a related patch set uploaded (by Arlolra):
T110910: Native <gallery> extension
The spec contains both a wikitext (in data-mw) and HTML representation of the gallery. How does Parsoid know which one to use when converting back?
Testing it in only appears to take note of the data-mw. Isn't the purpose here that VE can edit the generated HTML directly?
@Esanders Thanks for taking a look. I was too hasty in removing the WIP prefix.
You're right that currently serialization in the patch only considers the extsrc. Once we agree on an HTML representation that'll go away. Your feedback there would be appreciated (bearing in mind the TODOs in the head of the paste).
In the DOM spec invalid lines are dropped, however if we get rid of data-mw then we need to preserve that information somewhere. Maybe as in-place HTML comments?
Good point. An HTML comment seems reasonable (and editable!). I've updated the spec and patch accordingly.
That said @cscott might have an opinion on using HTML comments - it may add some unnecessary complexity around escaping certain characters.
Change 264026 had a related patch set uploaded (by Arlolra):
WIP: Native <gallery> extension
I think we should avoid comment nodes because of T95040.
Also making it editable should be given carefully consideration given that you are essentially allow the user to write wikitext. If these are simply labelled as comments, what if the user includes '</gallery>' in one of them?
@Esanders Good points.
In the case of,
<references> stuff that isn't a ref </references>
we drop the "stuff that isn't a ref".
See "References: 5. ref tags in references should be processed while ignoring all other content" in parserTests.txt
We should probably be consistent with that.
Separately, @Arlolra and I were also discussing yesterday about what kinds of finer-grained support VE might need / benefit from. For example, would data-mw attributes at the level of individual images (vs. at the level of a gallery) be useful? I imagine you will figure this out better based on experience with the current output.
For the purpose of finer-grained control of dirty diffs on edits to galleries, we might add data-parsoid attributes and element ids on individual images. T151367 is related to that.
The spec is here now https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Specs/HTML/1.3.0/Extensions/Gallery