robchur wrote:

This would be a poor idea. The purpose of a <noinclude> tag is to state text
which will not be retained when a template is included. This is desired to be
even for all users, including those with browsers without CSS support, and those
using screen readers.

locke.cole.wiki wrote:

@ Rob Church:

This would only be significant when viewing the template (or any page which has
the <noinclude> tag in it while viewing that page directly and not via
transclusion). Just wrapping <noinclude>'d content in a span tag with it's own
CSS class so it can be overridden should satisfy this report.

robchur wrote:

You need to be careful to be specific in future, then; this report read totally
differently to what you appear to actually be requesting.

In the same way, could those areas tagged with <onlyinclude> also be given similar
treatment?

For the avoidance of doubt, this would only be when viewing or editing the page
containing those sections, to make it quite clear which areas of the current page
will be included or not if it were to be transcluded somewhere.

happy.melon.wiki wrote:

What should the value of {{#ifeq: <noinclude>Foo</noinclude> | Foo | true | false }} be? At which point in the parse process should these spans be added?

I could imagine problems with things like:
<noinclude> <span class="foo"></noinclude><includeonly><span class="bar"></includeonly>Some content </span>

Or even worse:

<span <noinclude> class="foo"</noinclude> <includeonly> class="bar" </includeonly> >Some content </span>

ayg wrote:

This is totally impractical; <noinclude> et al. can enclose absolutely anything, including stuff that produces only wikitext markup. Forget about the above, try:

{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>foo}}

It's extremely unlikely you'd be able to do this sanely.