Topic on Talk:Extension default namespaces

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please define a serious range for user

10
189.100.56.101 (talkcontribs)

A site administrator need free and secure namespace ranges to use for your site... There are a big contradiction with "The namespaces in 100-199 are reserved for site-specific namespaces, and should not be used by extensions".

Please, if it is a serious standardization, express an ensured range or set of ranges, that not will change tomorrow. EXAMPLE: "dear admistrator, sorry, you can ensure after 2015 with {130-159, 150-159 , 180-199}"

Please say to extension programmers to move out from the reserved range.

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

This information is at the very end of this page. I added a note at the top to get the message across more visibly. Guess this is ok. Cheers

Loonybomber (talkcontribs)

The manual refers to starting at 200:

// Define constants for my additional namespaces.
define("NS_FOO", 200); // This MUST be even.
define("NS_FOO_TALK", 201); // This MUST be the following odd integer.

It seems natural to put namespaces that are not used for extensions in this area because it's not between 1-199 and conflicting with namespaces for well known extensions beginning at 300.

However, Extension_default_namespaces#Extension_default_namespaces.23ID_3000.2B states that custom namespaces should be above 3000.

What's the best range for systems administrators to place custom namespaces?

I'm going to try starting at 3000 now to resolve the Invalid or Virtual Namespace -1 errors when I try to create forms with Semantic and Semantic-Forms. After changing namespaces I won't forget to run maintenance/update.php and then run rebuild and update via Special:SMWAdmin.

hrm, first time using visual editor [[Evar]!] ... tried to cut and past code from main page and it wouldn't work:

Note Note: Namespaces using numbers from 3000 and higher are meant to be used by system adminiatrators to define their custom namespaces. Thus extension developers should not use this range.

It is confusing.

| using numbers from 3000 and higher.

MWJames (talkcontribs)

> I'm going to try starting at 3000 now to resolve the Invalid or Virtual Namespace -1 errors when I try to create forms with Semantic and Semantic-Forms.

I'm not sure what issue you have with SMW's default namespace but SMW NS range has been used fairly early before the whole NS number n....... came up therefore if you leave the NS as deployed you should not face any issue.

In case you want to use a different NS then you advise to read:

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

I have revised the manual. I do not see a connection with SMW either, however the tips MWJames provided should help you out of your misery.

Loonybomber (talkcontribs)

Thank you. There is so much to look into.

Yaron Koren (talkcontribs)

That "Invalid or virtual namespace" error message has nothing to do with custom namespace numbers - it's an error brought about by a combination of certain versions of ConfirmEdit (maybe the ones that come with MW 124 and MW 1.25) and Semantic Forms. I'm hoping to be able to find a patch to fix it; though I think with the very latest version of ConfirmEdit, it's no longer a problem.

Albert Ke (talkcontribs)

I just want to confirm that this is a 'SF' - 'ConfirmEdit' conflict that started to occur for me with MW version 1.25.1 (that includes ConfirmEdit 1.3). Removing confirmedit (although not something I wanted to do) solved this issue. I'm using SF 3.2-alpha (f6c8e0b) and SMW 2.2.1

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

See also this post. Both extensions should play now for MW 1.25 with their latest versions.

Loonybomber (talkcontribs)

Thanks Kghbln. The manual is much clearer.

I'm not qualified to chime in on the namespace issue; the namespace issues magically disappeared.  :)

Reply to "Please define a serious range for user"