|
|
|
@ -21,11 +21,67 @@ behaviour, an auxiliary plugin would be easy.)
|
|
|
|
>> (like `map`). Is your plan that `meta` should register itself by
|
|
|
|
>> (like `map`). Is your plan that `meta` should register itself by
|
|
|
|
>> default, and `map` and friends should be adapted to
|
|
|
|
>> default, and `map` and friends should be adapted to
|
|
|
|
>> work based on `getfield()` instead of `$pagestate{foo}{meta}`, then?
|
|
|
|
>> work based on `getfield()` instead of `$pagestate{foo}{meta}`, then?
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>> Based on `field_get_value()`, yes. That would be my ideal. Do you think I should implement that as an ikiwiki branch? --[[KathrynAndersen]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>> This doesn't solve cases where certain fields are treated specially; for
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>> instance, putting a `\[[!meta permalink]]` on a page is not the same as
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>> putting it in `ymlfront` (in the latter case you won't get your
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>> `<link>` header), and putting `\[[!meta date]]` is not the same as putting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>> `date` in `ymlfront` (in the latter case, `%pagectime` won't be changed).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>> One way to resolve that would be to have `ymlfront`, or similar, be a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>> front-end for `meta` rather than for `field`, and call
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>> `IkiWiki::Plugin::meta::preprocess` (or a refactored-out function that's
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>> similar).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>> There are also some cross-site scripting issues (see below)... --[[smcv]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> (On the site I mentioned, I'm using an unmodified version of `field`,
|
|
|
|
>> (On the site I mentioned, I'm using an unmodified version of `field`,
|
|
|
|
>> and currently working around the collision by tagging books' pages
|
|
|
|
>> and currently working around the collision by tagging books' pages
|
|
|
|
>> with `bookauthor` instead of `author` in the YAML.) --s
|
|
|
|
>> with `bookauthor` instead of `author` in the YAML.) --s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> Revisiting this after more thought, the problem here is similar to the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> possibility that a wiki user adds a `meta` shortcut
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> to [[shortcuts]], or conversely, that a plugin adds a `cpan` directive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> that conflicts with the `cpan` shortcut that pages already use. (In the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> case of shortcuts, this is resolved by having plugin-defined directives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> always win.) For plugin-defined meta keywords this is the plugin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> author's/wiki admin's problem - just don't enable conflicting plugins! -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> but it gets scary when you start introducing things like `ymlfront`, which
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> allow arbitrary, wiki-user-defined fields, even ones that subvert
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> other plugins' assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> The `pagetemplate` hook is particularly alarming because page templates are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> evaluated in many contexts, not all of which are subject to the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> htmlscrubber or escaping; because the output from `field` isn't filtered,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> prefixed or delimited, when combined with an arbitrary-key-setting plugin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> like `ymlfront` it can interfere with other plugins' expectations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> and potentially cause cross-site scripting exploits. For instance, `inline`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> has a `pagetemplate` hook which defines the `FEEDLINKS` template variable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> to be a blob of HTML to put in the `<head>` of the page. As a result, this
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> YAML would be bad:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> ---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> FEEDLINKS: <script>alert('code injection detected')</script>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> ---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> (It might require a different case combination due to implementation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> details, I'm not sure.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> It's difficult for `field` to do anything about this, because it doesn't
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> know whether a field is meant to be plain text, HTML, a URL, or something
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> If `field`'s `pagetemplate` hook did something more limiting - like
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> only emitting template variables starting with `field_`, or from some
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> finite set, or something - then this would cease to be a problem, I think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> `ftemplate` and `getfield` don't have this problem, as far as I can see,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> because their output is in contexts where the user could equally well have
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> written raw HTML directly; the user can cause themselves confusion, but
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> can't cause harmful output. --[[smcv]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From a coding style point of view, the `$CamelCase` variable names aren't
|
|
|
|
From a coding style point of view, the `$CamelCase` variable names aren't
|
|
|
|
IkiWiki style, and the `match_foo` functions look as though they could benefit
|
|
|
|
IkiWiki style, and the `match_foo` functions look as though they could benefit
|
|
|
|
from being thin wrappers around a common `&IkiWiki::Plugin::field::match`
|
|
|
|
from being thin wrappers around a common `&IkiWiki::Plugin::field::match`
|
|
|
|
@ -94,6 +150,7 @@ field-etc branch in git://git.pseudorandom.co.uk/git/smcv/ikiwiki.git (gitweb:
|
|
|
|
--[[smcv]]
|
|
|
|
--[[smcv]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Can do for the field plugin (delete one line? Easy.) Will push when I get to a better connection. --[[KathrynAndersen]]
|
|
|
|
> Can do for the field plugin (delete one line? Easy.) Will push when I get to a better connection. --[[KathrynAndersen]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> Done! -K.A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -109,3 +166,72 @@ belonging to the meta plugin, and generalizing that to be able to access
|
|
|
|
info stored by other plugins too. (But I don't see any other plugins that
|
|
|
|
info stored by other plugins too. (But I don't see any other plugins that
|
|
|
|
currently store such info). Then too, it raises points of confusion like
|
|
|
|
currently store such info). Then too, it raises points of confusion like
|
|
|
|
smcv's discuission of field author vs meta author above. --[[Joey]]
|
|
|
|
smcv's discuission of field author vs meta author above. --[[Joey]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> The point is exactly in the generalization, to provide a uniform interface for accessing structured data, no matter what the source of it, whether that be the meta plugin or some other plugin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> There were a few reasons for this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>1. In converting my site over from PmWiki, I needed something that was equivalent to PmWiki's Page-Text-Variables (which is how PmWiki implements structured data).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>2. I also wanted an equivalent of PmWiki's Page-Variables, which, rather than being simple variables, are the return-value of a function. This gives one a lot of power, because one can do calculations, derive one thing from another. Heck, just being able to have a "basename" variable is useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>3. I noticed that in the discussion about structured data, it was mired down in disagreements about what form the structured data should take; I wanted to overcome that hurdle by decoupling the form from the content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>4. I actually use this to solve (1), because, while I do use ymlfront, initially my pages were in PmWiki format (I wrote (another) unreleased plugin which parses PmWiki format) including PmWiki's Page-Text-Variables for structured data. So I needed something that could deal with multiple formats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> So, yes, it does cater to mostly my personal needs, but I think it is more generally useful, also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> --[[KathrynAndersen]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> Is it fair to say, then, that `field`'s purpose is to take other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> plugins' arbitrary per-page data, and present it as a single
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> merged/flattened string => string map per page? From the plugins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> here, things you then use that merged map for include:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> * sorting - stolen by [[todo/allow_plugins_to_add_sorting_methods]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> * substitution into pages with Perl-like syntax - `getfield`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> * substitution into wiki-defined templates - the `pagetemplate`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> hook
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> * substitution into user-defined templates - `ftemplate`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> As I mentioned above, the flattening can cause collisions (and in the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> `pagetemplate` case, even security problems).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> I wonder whether conflating Page Text Variables with Page Variables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> causes `field` to be more general than it needs to be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> To define a Page Variable (function-like field), you need to write
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> a plugin containing that Perl function; if we assume that `field`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> or something resembling it gets merged into ikiwiki, then it's
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> reasonable to expect third-party plugins to integrate with whatever
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> scaffolding there is for these (either in an enabled-by-default
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> plugin that most people are expected to leave enabled, like `meta`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> now, or in the core), and it doesn't seem onerous to expect each
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> plugin that wants to participate in this mechanism to have code to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> do so. While it's still contrib, `field` could just have a special case
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> for the meta plugin, rather than the converse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> If Page Text Variables are limited to being simple strings as you
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> suggest over in [[forum/an_alternative_approach_to_structured_data]],
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> then they're functionally similar to `meta` fields, so one way to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> get their functionality would be to extend `meta` so that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> \[[!meta badger="mushroom"]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> (for an unrecognised keyword `badger`) would store
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> `$pagestate{$page}{meta}{badger} = "mushroom"`? Getting this to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> appear in templates might be problematic, because a naive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> `pagetemplate` hook would have the same problem that `field` combined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> with `ymlfront` currently does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> One disadvantage that would appear if the function-like and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> meta-like fields weren't in the same namespace would be that it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> wouldn't be possible to switch a field from being meta-like to being
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> function-like without changing any wiki content that referenced it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> Perhaps meta-like fields should just *be* `meta` (with the above
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> enhancement), as a trivial case of function-like fields? That would
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> turn `ymlfront` into an alternative syntax for `meta`, I think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> That, in turn, would hopefully solve the special-fields problem,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> by just delegating it to meta. I've been glad of the ability to define
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> new ad-hoc fields with this plugin without having to write an extra plugin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> to do so (listing books with a `bookauthor` and sorting them by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> `"field(bookauthor) title"`), but that'd be just as easy if `meta`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> accepted ad-hoc fields?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> --[[smcv]]
|
|
|
|
|
Joey Hess