po responses, 1 month late
parent
4c5987d150
commit
1b89899534
|
@ -272,3 +272,8 @@ So, looking at your meta branch: --[[Joey]]
|
||||||
>>> it in a way that leaves room for #2.
|
>>> it in a way that leaves room for #2.
|
||||||
>>>
|
>>>
|
||||||
>>> --[[intrigeri]]
|
>>> --[[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]]
|
||||||
|
|
|
@ -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
|
>> should appear on the current page. That's why I'm testing
|
||||||
>> `$template->param('discussionlink')`.
|
>> `$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?
|
> * Is there any real reason not to allow removing a translation?
|
||||||
> I'm imagining a spammy translation, which an admin might not
|
> I'm imagining a spammy translation, which an admin might not
|
||||||
> be able to fix, but could remove.
|
> be able to fix, but could remove.
|
||||||
|
@ -384,6 +396,11 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :)
|
||||||
>> Not that I'd really care, but I am slightly in favour of the way
|
>> Not that I'd really care, but I am slightly in favour of the way
|
||||||
>> it currently works.
|
>> 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`.
|
> * Re the meta title escaping issue worked around by `change`.
|
||||||
> I suppose this does not only affect meta, but other things
|
> I suppose this does not only affect meta, but other things
|
||||||
> at scan time too. Also, handling it only on rebuild feels
|
> at scan time too. Also, handling it only on rebuild feels
|
||||||
|
@ -404,3 +421,5 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :)
|
||||||
>> I'll think about it soon.
|
>> I'll think about it soon.
|
||||||
>>
|
>>
|
||||||
>> --[[intrigeri]]
|
>> --[[intrigeri]]
|
||||||
|
>>
|
||||||
|
>>> Did you get a chance to? --[[Joey]]
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue