The project at 5j9/wikitextparser has 100% code coverage as per codecov.io. Should its "complete implementation" be changed in the table from "almost" to "yes"? I shall update it myself, if this post gets no response.
Talk:Alternative parsers/Archive 2
About this board
 Archives | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Previous page history was archived for backup purposes at Talk:Alternative parsers/LQT Archive 1 on 2015-07-10.
Code coverage indicates how well a project is tested (whatever the project), it has nothing to do with parsing 100% wikitext or not... Regards.
Any criteria for checking 100% implementation of wikitext? Perhaps everything onhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikitext?
The Magnus' magic wiki-to-XML converter is not found.
Seeing as the text itself says that some of the entries are out of maintenance or outdated but preserved to save future work (very much agree with that), shouldn't the table feature a "maintenance status" column, both as a courtesy to those just seeking to grab something to use, and for those to see who might be prepared to take up some work or elaborate on whatever documentation exists?
NOTE @all: Please do respond and contradict me if you see fit. Present no objections I may just "be bold" and just create that column somewhere in the future.
forgot to add, I think that columns place should be rather far to the right so one isn't forced so scan long lines or even mark them with the mouse for better vision. So, close to the Author column, may be even in front of it.
and that was meant to be "left" not "right", sorry folks.
any one used parser ?
can any one used by oarser
can anyone help me to how use this parser
lots of dead links, maybe remove those, or mark red or something.
I tried changing table type to wikitable, but that did not allow me to sort.
There are no older topics