No changes should be made to code or documentation until we have a team agreement about the new language.
We would like to have some agreement on consistent, unambiguous terminology for the Cite-Extends feature we can use not only in the code, but notable in user-facing Documentation.
- It's already decided that the term "book referencing", "book reference", and similar should not be used.
- Since at least a year we keep using "sub-referencing", "sub-reference", "subreference" or short "subref" quite consistently. Can we consider this an (implicit) agreement?
- With or without dash? Might apply to other words as well, e.g. "re-use".
- How to call the "parent"? We also talk about a "base" or "normal reference" in some places.
- What about "extended reference", "extends", and similar? Should we avoid this in user-facing documentation, even if we stick to the attribute name extends=…? One argument here is that it's confusing in technical contexts that also talk about "MediaWiki extensions".
Product trio decision: We want to use "sub-reference", "main reference", and "re-use".
TODO:
- Rename the wgCiteBookReferencing flag we expose in JavaScript (note this is separate from the flag in PHP) → https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1066693
- Rename the CiteBookReferencing flag in PHP. Warning, already in use in at least 3 codebases.
- Update parser test names → https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1066691
- Update code comments.
- Update documentation.
- Update error messages, both in VisualEditor and in the parser code. → T373564
- …?