<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: We have, have we?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.anubite.co.uk/index.php/2007/07/29/we-have-have-we/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.anubite.co.uk/index.php/2007/07/29/we-have-have-we/</link>
	<description>Ponderances of a MediaWiki developer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:25:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Phil Boswell</title>
		<link>http://blog.anubite.co.uk/index.php/2007/07/29/we-have-have-we/comment-page-1/#comment-455</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Boswell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:53:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.anubite.co.uk/index.php/2007/07/29/we-have-have-we/#comment-455</guid>
		<description>Sounds like a good excuse to trot out my perennial &quot;thought development&quot; (that&#039;s like a thought experiment in that it&#039;s all inside my head).

I had this idea where MediaWiki became more &quot;OO&quot; in that each namespace could be assigned a &quot;handler&quot; mechanism to deal with editing and displaying the content.

So for an &quot;image&quot; namespace, you could have an embedded editor like Inkscape. For a &quot;music&quot; namespace, you could embed Lilypond, or something similar. For &quot;discussion&quot; you could use something like Dave McCabe&#039;s Liquid Threads, or default to regular wikitext if you wanted.

You could then have a &quot;sub-class&quot; of &quot;text&quot; which used a different syntax, and depended on its &quot;handler&quot; to translate into HTML/XML/WTFML depending what we&#039;re using at that point.

My question is not &quot;is it insane?&quot;, because it obviously is, but &quot;is it insane *enough*?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like a good excuse to trot out my perennial &#8220;thought development&#8221; (that&#8217;s like a thought experiment in that it&#8217;s all inside my head).</p>
<p>I had this idea where MediaWiki became more &#8220;OO&#8221; in that each namespace could be assigned a &#8220;handler&#8221; mechanism to deal with editing and displaying the content.</p>
<p>So for an &#8220;image&#8221; namespace, you could have an embedded editor like Inkscape. For a &#8220;music&#8221; namespace, you could embed Lilypond, or something similar. For &#8220;discussion&#8221; you could use something like Dave McCabe&#8217;s Liquid Threads, or default to regular wikitext if you wanted.</p>
<p>You could then have a &#8220;sub-class&#8221; of &#8220;text&#8221; which used a different syntax, and depended on its &#8220;handler&#8221; to translate into HTML/XML/WTFML depending what we&#8217;re using at that point.</p>
<p>My question is not &#8220;is it insane?&#8221;, because it obviously is, but &#8220;is it insane *enough*?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
