Move some discussion from comments page to here
http://smcv.pseudorandom.co.uk/
Joey Hess
parent
7592a6f5b6
commit
7a7f4a3cb6
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
|
||||||
|
# Why internal pages? (unresolved)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Comments are saved as internal pages, so they can never be edited through the CGI,
|
||||||
|
only by direct committers. Currently, comments are always in [[ikiwiki/markdown]].
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> So, why do it this way, instead of using regular wiki pages in a
|
||||||
|
> namespace, such as `$page/comments/*`? Then you could use [[plugins/lockedit]] to
|
||||||
|
> limit editing of comments in more powerful ways. --[[Joey]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
>> Er... I suppose so. I'd assumed that these pages ought to only exist as inlines
|
||||||
|
>> rather than as individual pages (same reasoning as aggregated posts), though.
|
||||||
|
>>
|
||||||
|
>> lockedit is actually somewhat insufficient, since `check_canedit()`
|
||||||
|
>> doesn't distinguish between creation and editing; I'd have to continue to use
|
||||||
|
>> some sort of odd hack to allow creation but not editing.
|
||||||
|
>>
|
||||||
|
>> I also can't think of any circumstance where you'd want a user other than
|
||||||
|
>> admins (~= git committers) and possibly the commenter (who we can't check for
|
||||||
|
>> at the moment anyway, I don't think?) to be able to edit comments - I think
|
||||||
|
>> user expectations for something that looks like ordinary blog comments are
|
||||||
|
>> likely to include "others can't put words into my mouth".
|
||||||
|
>>
|
||||||
|
>> My other objection to using a namespace is that I'm not particularly happy about
|
||||||
|
>> plugins consuming arbitrary pieces of the wiki namespace - /discussion is bad
|
||||||
|
>> 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]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
>>> (I've now implemented this in my branch. --[[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. --[[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]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# Access control (unresolved?)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
By the way, I think that who can post comments should be controllable by
|
||||||
|
the existing plugins opendiscussion, anonok, signinedit, and lockedit. Allowing
|
||||||
|
posting comments w/o any login, while a nice capability, can lead to
|
||||||
|
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'.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Another possibility is to just check for permission to edit (e.g.) `sandbox/comment1`.
|
||||||
|
> However, this makes the "comments can only be created, not edited" feature completely
|
||||||
|
> reliant on the fact that internal pages can't be edited. Perhaps there should be a
|
||||||
|
> `editable_pages` pagespec, defaulting to `'*'`? --[[smcv]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# comments directive vs global setting (resolved?)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
When comments have been enabled generally, you still need to mark which pages
|
||||||
|
can have comments, by including the `\[[!comments]]` directive in them. By default,
|
||||||
|
this directive expands to a "post a comment" link plus an `\[[!inline]]` with
|
||||||
|
the comments. [This requirement has now been removed --[[smcv]]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> I don't like this, because it's hard to explain to someone why they have
|
||||||
|
> to insert this into every post to their blog. Seems that the model used
|
||||||
|
> for discussion pages could work -- if comments are enabled, automatically
|
||||||
|
> add the comment posting form and comments to the end of each page.
|
||||||
|
> --[[Joey]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
>> I don't think I'd want comments on *every* page (particularly, not the
|
||||||
|
>> front page). Perhaps a pagespec in the setup file, where the default is "*"?
|
||||||
|
>> Then control freaks like me could use "link(tags/comments)" and tag pages
|
||||||
|
>> as allowing comments.
|
||||||
|
>>
|
||||||
|
>>> Yes, I think a pagespec is the way to go. --[[Joey]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
>>>> Implemented --[[smcv]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
>>
|
||||||
|
>> The model used for discussion pages does require patching the existing
|
||||||
|
>> page template, which I was trying to avoid - I'm not convinced that having
|
||||||
|
>> every possible feature hard-coded there really scales (and obviously it's
|
||||||
|
>> 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? --[[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]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
>>>>> I've switched my branch to use page.tmpl instead; see what you think? --[[smcv]]
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue