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

review

master
Joey Hess 2009-03-29 14:54:08 -04:00
parent 44688008ef
commit b1551ed0e2
1 changed files with 33 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

34
doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
View File

@ -332,12 +332,44 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :)
> Ok, I've reviewed and merged into my own po branch. It's looking very
> mergeable. I would still like to go over the `po.pm` code in detail and
> review it, but it's very complex, and I'm happy with all the changes
> outside `po.pm`.
> outside `po.pm`. (Reviewed the first 520 lines, up to injected
> functions.)
>
> * Is it worth trying to fix compatability with `indexpages`?
>>
>> Supporting `usedirs` being enabled or disabled was already quite
>> hard IIRC, so supporting all four combinations of `usedirs` and
>> `indexpages` settings will probably be painful. I propose we forget
>> about it until someone reports he/she badly needs it, and then
>> we'll see what can be done.
>>
> * Would it make sense to go ahead and modify `page.tmpl` to use
> OTHERLANGUAGES and PERCENTTRANSLATED, instead of documenting how to modify it?
>>
>> Done in my branch.
>>
> * Would it be better to disable po support for pages that use unsupported
> or poorly-supported markup languages?
>
>> I prefer keeping it enabled, as:
>>
>> * most wiki markups "almost work"
>> * when someone needs one of these to be fully supported, it's not
>> that hard to add dedicated support for it to po4a; if it were
>> disabled, I fear the ones who could do this would maybe think
>> it's blandly impossible and give up.
>>
>
> * What's the reasoning behind checking that the link plugin
> is enabled? AFAICS, the same code in the scan hook should
> also work when other link plugins like camelcase are used.
> * In `pagetemplate` there is a comment that claims the code
> relies on `genpage`, but I don't see how it does; it seems
> to always add a discussion link?
> * 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.
>
> --[[Joey]]
>>
>> --[[intrigeri]]