responses and more thoughts on the issue of discussion pages as blogs

doc/todo/allow_full_post_from_the___34__add_a_new_post__34___form.mdwn

@@ -1 +1,10 @@
-To avoid the two-step posting process of typing a page name, hitting "Edit", entering content, and hitting "Save Page", how about optionally including a post content field, save button, and preview button directly on the page with the inline?  This would particularly help when using an inline directive for a comment form at the bottom of a blog post; with these added fields, the post form becomes exactly like the typical blog comment form.
+To avoid the two-step posting process of typing a page name, hitting
+"Edit", entering content, and hitting "Save Page", how about optionally
+including a post content field, save button, and preview button directly on
+the page with the inline?  This would particularly help when using an
+inline directive for a comment form at the bottom of a blog post; with
+these added fields, the post form becomes exactly like the typical blog
+comment form.
+
+> I agree that having this as an option is reasonable. Although it would
+> take a fair amount of work. --[[Joey]]

doc/todo/default_content_for_new_post.mdwn

@@ -1 +1,8 @@
-Along the same lines as having a [[default_name_for_new_post]]s, an option to include default content in a new [[plugins/inline]] post would help with tasks like using an inline for a comment form on each new blog post.
+Along the same lines as having a [[default_name_for_new_post]]s, an option
+to include default content in a new [[plugins/inline]] post would help with
+tasks like using an inline for a comment form on each new blog post.
+
+> No, it would only help if the new blog post were being made via the form.
+> If you're editing it in vi, and committing, it doesn't help. :-) This is
+> another reason why I prefer the approach in [[discussion_page_as_blog]]
+> --[[Joey]]

doc/todo/discussion_page_as_blog.mdwn

@@ -1,6 +1,23 @@
-Look at a discussion page here or eg on wikipedia. It tends to turn into a mess. One nice way to avoid the mess would be to set it a discussion page as a blog so each new comment is a separate post.
+Look at a discussion page here or eg on wikipedia. It tends to turn into a
+mess. One nice way to avoid the mess would be to set it a discussion page
+as a blog so each new comment is a separate post.
 
-One issue is, would there be a way to do this for all new discussion pages by default somehow? Setting up the blog means inserting a preprocessor directive; and that could somehow happen automatically when the discussion page is first created. (Creating a bunch of empty discussion pages with such directives ahead of time would be silly.) Maybe some kind of new page template system would do the trick, so pages matching */Discussion start off as a clone of DiscussionTemplate. Although the first person to
-try to create the discussion page would still end up in an edit page with that template, which is not ideal. Hmm.
+One issue is, would there be a way to do this for all new discussion pages
+by default somehow? Setting up the blog means inserting a preprocessor
+directive; and that could somehow happen automatically when the discussion
+page is first created. (Creating a bunch of empty discussion pages with
+such directives ahead of time would be silly.) Maybe some kind of new page
+template system would do the trick, so pages matching */Discussion start
+off as a clone of DiscussionTemplate. Although the first person to try to
+create the discussion page would still end up in an edit page with that
+template, which is not ideal. Hmm.
 
-Another issue is that discussions really want to be threaded. Does that mean that a page like foo/discussion/question should have its own foo/discussion/question/(discussion?)/answer page? Of course, rss feeds don't handle threading, and of course doing this might be dependant on the issue above. Worrying about threading may be overkill.
+Thinking about this some more, discussion links for pages that don't yet
+have discussion could go directly to the ikiwiki cgi, which could provide a
+post form, and create a new discussion page with the necessary inlining.
+
+Another issue is that discussions really want to be threaded. Does that
+mean that a page like foo/discussion/question should have its own
+foo/discussion/question/(discussion?)/answer page? Of course, rss feeds
+don't handle threading, and of course doing this might be dependant on the
+issue above. Worrying about threading may be overkill.

doc/todo/filtering_content_when_inlining.mdwn

@@ -1 +1,16 @@
-It would help to allow filtering of content when [[inlining|plugins/inline]] pages.  For example, given some way to filter out the display of inlines within other inlines, a blog post could allow easy inline commenting by putting an inline directive with post form at the bottom of the post.
+It would help to allow filtering of content when
+[[inlining|plugins/inline]] pages.  For example, given some way to filter
+out the display of inlines within other inlines, a blog post could allow
+easy inline commenting by putting an inline directive with post form at the
+bottom of the post.
+
+> That's trying to do the same thing as the todo item
+> [[discussion_page_as_blog]]. Difference is that you're suggesting
+> displaying the comments in the blog post that they comment on, instead
+> of on the separate disucssion page. Which leads to the problem of those
+> comments showing up inlined into the blog.
+> 
+> I know there are benefits to having the comments on the same page and not
+> a separate discussion page, but it does add compliciations and ikiwiki
+> already has discussion pages, so I'm more likely to go the route
+> described in [[discussion_page_as_blog]]. --[[Joey]]