urosm
/
ikiwiki
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

po responses, 1 month late

master
Joey Hess 2009-05-19 13:14:22 -04:00
parent 4c5987d150
commit 1b89899534
2 changed files with 24 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

5
doc/bugs/pagetitle_function_does_not_respect_meta_titles.mdwn
View File

@ -272,3 +272,8 @@ So, looking at your meta branch: --[[Joey]]
>>> it in a way that leaves room for #2.
>>>
>>> --[[intrigeri]]
>>>
>>>> I agree, we should concentrate on getting just enough functionality
>>>> for the po plugin, because I want to merge the po plugin soon.
>>>> If #2 gets tackled later, we will certianly have all kinds of fun.
>>>> no matter what is done for the po plugin. --[[Joey]]

19
doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
View File

@ -372,6 +372,18 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :)
>> should appear on the current page. That's why I'm testing
>> `$template->param('discussionlink')`.
>>
>>> Maybe I was really wondering why it says it could lead to a broken
>>> link if the cgiurl is disabled. I think I see why now: Discussionlink
>>> will be set to a link to an existing disucssion page, even if cgi is
>>> disabled -- but there's no guarantee of a translated discussion page
>>> existing in that case. *However*, htmllink actually checks
>>> for this case, and will avoid generating a broken link so AFAICS, the
>>> comment is actually innacurate.. what will really happen in this case
>>> is discussionlink will be set to a non-link translation of
>>> "discussion". Also, I consider `$config{cgi}` and `%links` (etc)
>>> documented parts of the plugin interface, which won't change; po could
>>> rely on them to avoid this minor problem. --[[Joey]]
>
> * Is there any real reason not to allow removing a translation?
> I'm imagining a spammy translation, which an admin might not
> be able to fix, but could remove.
@ -383,6 +395,11 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :)
>> delete the spammy `.po` file by hand using whatever VCS is in use.
>> Not that I'd really care, but I am slightly in favour of the way
>> it currently works.
>>
>>> That would definitly be confusing. It sounds to me like if we end up
>>> needing to allow web-based deletion of spammy translations, it will
>>> need improvements to the deletion UI to de-confuse that. It's fine to
>>> put that off until needed --[[Joey]]
>>
> * Re the meta title escaping issue worked around by `change`.
> I suppose this does not only affect meta, but other things
@ -404,3 +421,5 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :)
>> I'll think about it soon.
>>
>> --[[intrigeri]]
>>
>>> Did you get a chance to? --[[Joey]]