Last modified: 2012-05-08 16:52:44 UTC
Most wikimarkup is ignored when generating TOC entries, but bold, italic and references get rendered in the TOC. While I agree that it might make sense to render these formattinc commands in the section headings (which btw also support other markup such as images), it seems to me that the TOC should contain only plain, unformatted links (it already cleans up most wikimarkup anyway).
Making this change would cause lots of confusion on wiki since people have come to rely on it, wouldn't it? And unlike the diff colors change, there isn't a usability reason.
(In reply to comment #1) > Making this change would cause lots of confusion on wiki since people have come > to rely on it, wouldn't it? I wouldn't say lot's of confusion. I've been editing since 2005 and yesterday was the first time I noticed that bold text renders in the TOC. I'm not saying my experience is typical, but I wouldn't expect many people to know or care much about that. > And unlike the diff colors change, there isn't a usability reason. I'm not sure about the reason for this comparison. Why does it have to be a usability reason? This is an inconsistency in MediaWiki which breaks assumptions/logic about the behavior of the software. It looks like a bug to me.
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > And unlike the diff colors change, there isn't a usability reason. > I'm not sure about the reason for this comparison. Why does it have to be a > usability reason? This is an inconsistency in MediaWiki which breaks > assumptions/logic about the behavior of the software. It looks like a bug to > me. My point is that I think there has to be a good reason to make the change besides "It looks like a bug to me." A bug that has been around for a while is not a bug -- it is a feature people have come to depend on.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > And unlike the diff colors change, there isn't a usability reason. > > I'm not sure about the reason for this comparison. Why does it have to be a > > usability reason? This is an inconsistency in MediaWiki which breaks > > assumptions/logic about the behavior of the software. It looks like a bug to > > me. > > My point is that I think there has to be a good reason to make the change > besides "It looks like a bug to me." A bug that has been around for a while is > not a bug -- it is a feature people have come to depend on. So the bug can be: * It's not possible to make section titles italic and TOC normal. * <ref> rendered in TOC may confuse users: normally users clicking on "[1]" in superscript are sent to corresponding reference while users clicking on "[1]" in TOC are sent to the section text or: it's difficult to understand what "[1]" mean in TOC.
