User signatures, at least on enwiki, are continually introducing new Lint errors, for example due to the use of the <font> tag in @Tony1's edit this morning (sorry, I just used your edit because I remembered your signature had a font tag in it). This is compounded by a Tidy issue, T25467 (see this discussion), related to the nesting of links directly inside the font tag. Rather than stopping thousands of editors' signatures from being coloured, or having a bot clean up after every signature with a font tag, users' signatures could be manually modified on the server side (if it's possible?) or some other automatic conversion could be done. Failing that users could be told to change their signature upon logging in.
|Open||None||T230654 Parser support for talk pages|
|Open||matmarex||T140606 Check user signature for linter errors|
|Open||None||T178879 Automatically (or manually, server-side) fix user signatures containing Lint errors|
- Mentioned In
- T140606: Check user signature for linter errors
T192950: Find unbalanced HTML in current signature of users and inform the user and/or reset the signature
- Mentioned Here
- T176363: New high-priority Linter category for a subset of misnested tags whose behavior will change with a HTML5 parser
T25467: sig preview not accurate, disregards html-tidy effects
I don't understand this quite yet.
@Tony1's signature does not suffer from the T25467 issue, i.e. the font can be replaced with a span and it will render fine. We are right now not requiring editors to replace <font> tags -- it is a wiki-specific decision. The Linter is only flagging it for attention in a low-priority category.
On existing pages, where signatures have already been subst-ed, it is hard to automatically detect signatures (without introducing complexity and slowing down parsing) and fix them.
But, if you are suggesting that we fix user signatures in the database, we could ... but, not sure how editors would feel about that.
I don't think we should start any automatic edits to fix this until after we've forced all users to change their signatures (ideally, to never ever style them, as it's fundamentally impossible to be accessible).
What we can do depends on how severe we deem this is. Something low-priority requiring people to be forced to do something sounds contradictory. (What do you mean by forcing BTW? Would that mean that they get a warning, or that we need to convey a message about how styling signatures is "deprecated" from now on or something?)
I don't think users should be forced not to style their signatures, except maybe as part of implementing Flow/Structured Discussions if signatures would be removed entirely. You could do it, but there's no technical reason to have to do it unless you're disabling signatures or replacing them with a metadata tag for whatever reason. Signatures are usually identifiable as signatures, and the only screen reader user I've come across on enwiki formats his own signature, so I don't know if it's necessary or valid to disable them for accessibility.
You are referencing the html5-misnesting category. The tidy-font-bug category was deployed on the same day I made that comment. :-)
In any case, for the purposes of Tidy replacement and tidy-font-page, talk pages are not as critical since it does look like primarily user-signature related. All that will happen is that colors from their old signatures will disappear which is not catastrophic.
I think we should write a server-side script that goes through everyone's signature, and tries to rewrite it to avoid tidy bugs and the deprecated <font>. If this isn't possible due to e.g. length limits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao#Your_signature) then we should just revert them back to the default signature.
Right, Subbu pointed that out to me on IRC as well :) So in addition to the script, we also need some signature validation system. Ideally such a system would be written in PHP and could be in MediaWiki core itself rather than requiring Linter/parsoid.