diff --git a/doc/bugs/login_page_should_note_cookie_requirement.mdwn b/doc/bugs/login_page_should_note_cookie_requirement.mdwn index 32d971548..96686053c 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/login_page_should_note_cookie_requirement.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/login_page_should_note_cookie_requirement.mdwn @@ -18,12 +18,16 @@ Even better would be to only display the cookie note as a warning if the login p > time to check if it took, which is both complicated and probably would > look bad. +>> Might this be possible client-side with javascript? A quick google suggests it is possible: +>> . MJR, want to try adding +>> that? -- [[Will]] + Best of all would be to use URL-based or hidden-field-based session tokens if cookies are not permitted. > This is not very doable since most of the pages the user browses are > static pages in a static location. >> The pages that lose data without cookies (the edit pages, primarily) ->> don't look static. Are they really? --[MJR](http://mjr.towers.org.uk)a +>> don't look static. Are they really? --[MJR](http://mjr.towers.org.uk) >>> As soon as you post an edit page, you are back to a static website. diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/comments.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/comments.mdwn index 0957e74fa..75a329b51 100644 --- a/doc/plugins/contrib/comments.mdwn +++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/comments.mdwn @@ -30,10 +30,34 @@ only by direct committers. Currently, comments are always in [[ikiwiki/markdown] >> enough already. Indeed, this very page would accidentally get matched by rules >> aiming to control comment-posting... :-) --[[smcv]] +>> Thinking about it, perhaps one way to address this would be to have the suffix +>> (e.g. whether commenting on Sandbox creates sandbox/comment1 or sandbox/c1 or +>> what) be configurable by the wiki admin, in the same way that recentchanges has +>> recentchangespage => 'recentchanges'? I'd like to see fewer hard-coded page +>> names in general, really - it seems odd to me that shortcuts and smileys +>> hard-code the name of the page to look at. Perhaps I could add +>> discussionpage => 'discussion' too? --[[smcv]] + >> The best reason to keep the pages internal seems to me to be that you >> don't want the overhead of every comment spawning its own wiki page. >> The worst problem with it though is that you have to assume the pages ->> are mdwn (or `default_pageext`) and not support other formats. +>> are mdwn (or `default_pageext`) and not support other formats. --[[Joey]] + +>> Well, you could always have `comment1._mdwn`, `comment2._creole` etc. and +>> alter the htmlize logic so that the `mdwn` hook is called for both `mdwn` +>> and `_mdwn` (assuming this is not already the case). I'm not convinced +>> that multi-format comments are a killer feature, though - part of the point +>> of this plugin, in my mind, is that it's less flexible than the full power +>> of ikiwiki and gives users fewer options. This could be construed +>> to be a feature, for people who don't care how flexible the technology is +>> and just want a simple way to leave a comment. The FormattingHelp page +>> assumes you're writing 100% Markdown in any case... +>> +>> Internal pages do too many things, perhaps: they suppress generation of +>> HTML pages, they disable editing over the web, and they have a different +>> namespace of htmlize hooks. I think the first two of those are useful +>> for this plugin, and the last is harmless; you seem to think the first +>> is useful, and the other two are harmful. --[[smcv]] >> By the way, I think that who can post comments should be controllable by >> the existing plugins opendiscussion, anonok, signinedit, and lockedit. Allowing @@ -41,6 +65,29 @@ only by direct committers. Currently, comments are always in [[ikiwiki/markdown] >> spam problems. So, use `check_canedit` as at least a first-level check? >> --[[Joey]] +>> This plugin already uses `check_canedit`, but that function doesn't have a concept +>> of different actions. The hack I use is that when a user comments on, say, sandbox, +>> I call `check_canedit` for the pseudo-page "sandbox[postcomment]". The +>> special `postcomment(glob)` [[ikiwiki/pagespec]] returns true if the page ends with +>> "[postcomment]" and the part before (e.g. sandbox) matches the glob. So, you can +>> have postcomment(blog/*) or something. (Perhaps instead of taking a glob, postcomment +>> should take a pagespec, so you can have postcomment(link(tags/commentable))?) +>> +>> This is why `anonok_pages => 'postcomment(*)'` and `locked_pages => '!postcomment(*)'` +>> are necessary to allow anonymous and logged-in editing (respectively). +>> +>> This is ugly - one alternative would be to add `check_permission()` that takes a +>> page and a verb (create, edit, rename, remove and maybe comment are the ones I +>> can think of so far), use that, and port the plugins you mentioned to use that +>> API too. This plugin could either call `check_can("$page/comment1", 'create')` or +>> call `check_can($page, 'comment')`. +>> +>> One odd effect of the code structure I've used is that we check for the ability to +>> create the page before we actually know what page name we're going to use - when +>> posting the comment I just increment a number until I reach an unused one - so +>> either the code needs restructuring, or the permission check for 'create' would +>> always be for 'comment1' and never 'comment123'. --[[smcv]] + When using this plugin, you should also enable [[htmlscrubber]] and either [[htmltidy]] or [[htmlbalance]]. Directives are filtered out by default, to avoid commenters slowing down the wiki by causing time-consuming processing. As long as the recommended plugins @@ -58,7 +105,10 @@ are enabled, comment authorship should hopefully be unforgeable by CGI users. >> anything else, at this point. >> >> I've rebased the plugin on master, made it sanitize individual posts' content ->> and removed the option to disallow raw HTML. --[[smcv]] +>> and removed the option to disallow raw HTML. Sanitizing individual posts before +>> they've been htmlized required me to preserve whitespace in the htmlbalance +>> plugin, so I did that. Alternatively, we could htmlize immediately and always +>> save out raw HTML? --[[smcv]] >> There might be some use cases for other directives, such as img, in >> comments. @@ -94,7 +144,20 @@ the comments. >> rather annoying while this plugin is on a branch). --[[smcv]] >>> Using the template would allow customising the html around the comments ->>> which seems like a good thing? +>>> which seems like a good thing? --[[Joey]] + +>>> The \[[!comments]] directive is already template-friendly - it expands to +>>> the contents of the template `comments_embed.tmpl`, possibly with the +>>> result of an \[[!inline]] appended. I should change `comments_embed.tmpl` +>>> so it uses a template variable `INLINE` for the inline result rather than +>>> having the perl code concatenate it, which would allow a bit more +>>> customization (whether the "post" link was before or after the inline). +>>> Even if you want comments in page.tmpl, keeping the separate comments_embed.tmpl +>>> and having a `COMMENTS` variable in page.tmpl might be the way forward, +>>> since the smaller each templates is, the easier it will be for users +>>> to maintain a patched set of templates. (I think so, anyway, based on what happens +>>> with dpkg prompts in Debian packages with monolithic vs split +>>> conffiles.) --[[smcv]] The plugin adds a new [[ikiwiki/PageSpec]] match type, `postcomment`, for use with `anonok_pagespec` from the [[plugins/anonok]] plugin or `locked_pages` from @@ -121,6 +184,8 @@ Optional parameters to the comments directive: * `closed=yes`: use this to prevent new comments while still displaying existing ones. * `atom`, `rss`, `feeds`, `feedshow`, `timeformat`, `feedonly`: the same as for [[plugins/inline]] +>> I don't think feedonly actually makes sense here, so I'll remove it. --[[smcv]] + This plugin aims to close the [[todo]] item "[[todo/supporting_comments_via_disussion_pages]]", and is currently available from [[smcv]]'s git repository on git.pseudorandom.co.uk (it's the `postcomment` branch). A demo wiki with the plugin enabled is running at @@ -139,3 +204,12 @@ Known issues: > I haven't done a detailed code review, but I will say I'm pleased you > avoided re-implementing inline! --[[Joey]] + +Wishlist: + +* tbm would like anonymous people to be able to enter their name and possibly email + address +* smcv would like an indication of who you're posting as / the ability to log in + as someone else (even if anonymous comments are allowed, it'd be nice to be + able to choose to log in with a username or OpenID, like in Livejournal); + perhaps editpage needs this too