Talk:Superellipse: Difference between revisions
→Formulae now invisible on standard OS X browsers
| (19 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 47:
:::::::::::: Chrome 53.0.2785.113 (64-bit) has these problems... --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 19:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::: The bug is, as theory might have predicted, not in the browsers. It turns out to be in the wiki preprocessor, which for some reason generates an ill-formed image placement tag if redundant flanking spaces are inserted into math tags. See: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/User_talk:Rdm#.22math.22_HTML_tag_not_rendering_properly [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 22:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: In general, browsers are supposed to ignore syntactically incorrect html. I suppose though there might be an argument whether in this case it is the entire style attribute which is syntactically incorrect because of the missing semicolon in the value or whether it is the vertical-align element which is syntactically incorrect or whether it should be the part of the style attribute from the vertical-align element to the end of the style.
:::::::::::::: Worse than that, though, since this behavior is OS specific, it is not clear whether it is even browser code which is relevant.
:::::::::::::: Anyways, I guess my point is that we have multiple issues occurring here, which makes it problematic to talk about "the" bug.
:::::::::::::: That said, what do we have to do, to fix the wiki preprocessor, to not omit that semicolon? I see several tex preprocessors listed at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers but I do not know enough about mediawiki to know which of those we are using... --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 02:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: Hells bells, I didn't even know there ''was'' a Wiki pre-processor. I was surprised on how many there are, and also that so many of them are apparently supported by only one person instead of a team. I wonder how many of those pre-processors listed don't have this particular "bug". -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 03:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: The generator is announced, in the HTML created by Rosetta, as MediaWiki 1.26.2, and it looks to me as if that implies the use of https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math, which does provide contact details.
:::::::::::::: We don't know that the behaviour is OS-specific. It does, however, depend on whether a given browser processes MathML directly (not a standard technology, and only supported within browser companies by volunteer-work, according to Wikipedia) or uses the more reliable fall-back of displaying a graphic file. On OS X for example, Firefox is using MathML to get a formula onto the screen, whereas Chrome and Safari take the route of displaying the fall-back graphic file, but are prevented from doing so by the unparseable HTML code which we have been serving up with increasing regularity, as the missing semi-colon spreads doggedly through our Task pages.
::::::::::::::: It's not spreading (doggedly or otherwise), it's already there in the sense the whitespace is already there. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Syntactically incorrect HTML is certainly a bug from a browsers point of view, but we may find that the authors of the https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math throw up their hands and ask us why on earth we thought that they supported the insertion of redundant white space literals around our Latex expressions :-) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 05:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: That should be an easy question to answer. Consider, for example: https://www.sharelatex.com/learn/Spacing_in_math_mode --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 07:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: In all the bugs that I've reported (mostly to IBM and compiler developers) over my many years, I have never had authors (or code supporters) ask me why a program (or person) was using a legal construct (as if that's an excuse why whitespace was being used somewhere for readability). You have found that the browser is getting syntactically incorrect HTML code from a Wiki pre-processor, and the reason why that is being constructed incorrectly for some pre-processor seems to be now known (a missing semicolon). Also keep in mind that not all browsers (or pre-processors?) are failing. Apparently, not all Rosetta Code people are using the same Rosetta Code (Wiki) pre-processor, is that correct? If I reported a problem with (say) a compiler [or whatever] which caused it to fail with inserted extra (or redundant) whitespace (where it isn't specifically barred), the failing/incorrect code gets fixed. Why should they care if whitespace is redundant or not? Redundancy for whitespace is almost in the definition of whitespace. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: "hell's bells I didn't even know there was a pre-processor" is an entirely understandable defence from our end, but It may feel slightly galling to them ... [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 05:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: I'm not stating or supplying a defense in any way, just an admission of ignorance. You seem to be confused at the reason of my statement, and it was not intended to be used as an excuse to (or for) anybody, let alone the people to whom I'm not in contact with. I certainly can't/won't speak to how they would respond or feel (with or without gall). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: Gerard wrote > '''''Apparently, not all Rosetta Code people are using the same Rosetta Code (Wiki) pre-processor, is that correct?'''''
:::::::::::::::: No, that's not correct. All the code generation, for every single Rosetta user, is done by the same processor, on the Rosetta server - it's not a client-side process, or a client-side option.
:::::::::::::::: Every single Rosetta user is being served ill-formed tags for the graphic file version of formulae in tasks where you have made the spacing edit, and wherever else the '''MediaWiki 1.26.2''' processor (HTML code generator) is choking on any other unexpected input of this kind.
:::::::::::::::: The only variation between users is that some are using browsers which happen not to need that graphic file, because they have full support for rendering the MathML version directly. Unfortunately full MathML support is only at about 25% http://caniuse.com/#feat=mathml most browsers depend on the graphic file route, which is blocked as soon as that semi-colon is lost. (One of the reasons for limited adoption of MathML by browser producers seems to be a dependence on the installation of requisite fonts).
::::::::::::::::: That would explain why my browser doesn't show some of the more eclectic fonts used on Rosetta Code, such as the Unicode chess pieces glyphs (and among other glyphs). I always wondered why other Rosetta Code users could see those glyphs rendered, but my browsers didn't, even though, at the time, it was the latest (Beta) version. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: It was understandably not obvious to you that you were leaving a trail of invisible formulae behind you - you are clearly using one of the browsers which do not need the graphic file because they are rendering from the MathML.
::::::::::::::::: Yuppers, you're the first person to acknowledge that I didn't have the other tools installed (failing browsers) to view the problem (of "invisibility"), all I viewed (via my two browsers) was what I was expecting and observing: the correct rendering(s) of <big><nowiki> <math> ∙∙∙ </math> </nowiki></big> text. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::: I am little puzzled that you persist in speaking hopefully of "failing browsers" :-) No browsers are failing - they are behaving correctly. The mediaWiki software had been generating syntactically correct tags for the display of formula graphic files, but was no longer doing so after your edits, rendering the formulae invisible (yes, invisible, no need for quotes :-) to all browsers (the majority) which use the graphic file for the display of formulae. Have you heard of a large river which flows through Egypt ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 19:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Mr Hout: I was speaking of the browsers that are failing to render the text, whether it be from ill-formed HTML code or whatever reason, I wasn't laying blame on (or to) the browsers. I also was using the word "invisible" (in quotes) as that was the word you introduced. The word "invisible" suggest that the formula is there, but just can't be seen. In fact, the formulae aren't invisible, they just aren't being rendered (in the failing case), and that is why I placed the word invisible in quotes. There isn't any need to use such language (and interpreting my statements as being hopefully this or that ...), this isn't helping in solving and trying to address problem resolution, and reverting to ad hominem statements and snide criticisms like the above aren't in the spirit of Rosetta Code. Lets try to be more civil in these public forums. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
: A suggestion, install a second browser on your system - one of the major ones which displays the graphic file rather than a local MathML render, (possibly Chrome ? not sure which platform you are on ...) and start restoring visibility to any remaining formulae which you inadvertently rendered invisible on most browsers.
: That will also enable to you check that you are not further damaging the visibility of formulae in any other edits which you undertake, and may give you a little more insight into the expectations and outputs of the MediaWiki processor. Good luck, and happy repairs ! [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]])
:: I already have a second (and a few other older ones) on my system. I already explained earlier and elsewhere, that isn't possible to do any major upgrades with my current system. The FireFox browser was addressing needs and concerns that the other browsers weren't. I guess FireFox and Microsoft's Internet Explorer aren't giving me enough insights to the Wiki pre-processor, especially since I didn't even know that the pre-processor existed before this all happened!. If the pre-processor correctly handled that (missing) semi-colon, I (and a bunch of others) would still be unaware of it. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
:::: Gerard wrote: '''"I guess FireFox and Microsoft's Internet Explorer aren't giving me enough insights to the Wiki pre-processor"'''. Checking with your copy of Internet Explorer would have given you that insight if you had tried. IE is a member of the majority browser class - one of those which displays the server side graphic file for the formula. If you had used it to check your edits, you would have seen immediately that they were preventing the display of that graphic file.
:::: It's very important to check the real effects of formula edits on both browser types, and particularly on the majority type. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 18:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::: Fair enough - but probably prudent, then, to suspend the cosmetic enhancement drive until you are equipped to check whether or not particular edits are eliminating legibility, rather than enhancing it, for the majority of browsers [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 14:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
| |||