Use Digest::SHA built into perl rather than external Digest::SHA1 to simplify depende...

[git.ikiwiki.info.git] / doc / plugins / po / discussion.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/plugins/po/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/po/discussion.mdwn
index 1c3f0e752ee90b93d07cc68393ea87df87142bcf..73858c8189972ce700b9088e09bd0a19799d715c 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/plugins/po/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/doc/plugins/po/discussion.mdwn
@@ -150,6 +150,23 @@ The following analysis was done with his help.
   variables; according to [[Joey]], this is "Freaky code, but seems ok
   due to use of `quotementa`".
 
+##### Locale::Po4a::Xhtml
+
+* does not run any external program
+* does not build regexp's from untrusted variables
+
+=> Seems safe as far as the `includessi` option is disabled; the po
+plugin explicitly disables it.
+
+Relies on Locale::Po4a::Xml` to do most of the work.
+
+##### Locale::Po4a::Xml
+
+* does not run any external program
+* the `includeexternal` option makes it able to read external files;
+  the po plugin explicitly disables it
+* untrusted variables are escaped when used to build regexp's
+
 ##### Text::WrapI18N
 
 `Text::WrapI18N` can cause DoS
@@ -513,7 +530,7 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]]
 >>>>
 >>>>> Done. --[[intrigeri]]
 >>> 
-> * I'm very fearful of the `add_depends` in `postscan`. 
+> * I'm very fearful of the `add_depends` in `indexhtml`. 
 >   Does this make every page depend on every page that links
 >   to it? Won't this absurdly bloat the dependency pagespecs
 >   and slow everything down? And since nicepagetitle is given
@@ -699,3 +716,28 @@ and via CGI, have been tested.
 * general test with `indexpages` enabled: **not OK**
 * general test with `po_link_to=default` with `userdirs` enabled: **OK**
 * general test with `po_link_to=default` with `userdirs` disabled: **OK**
+
+Duplicate %links ?
+------------------
+
+I notice code in the scan hook that seems to assume
+that %links will accumulate duplicate links for a page.
+That used to be so, but the bug was fixed. Does this mean
+that po might be replacing the only link on a page, in error? 
+--[[Joey]] 
+
+> It would replace it. The only problematic case is when another
+> plugin has its own reasons, in its `scan` hook, to add a page
+> that is already there to `$links{$page}`. This other plugin's
+> effect might then be changed by po's `scan` hook... which could
+> be either good (better overall l10n) or bad (break the other
+> plugin's goal). --[[intrigeri]]
+
+>> Right.. well, the cases where links are added is very small.
+>> Grepping for `add_link`, it's just done by link, camelcase, meta, and
+>> tag. All of these are supposed to work just link regular links
+>> so I'd think that is ok. We could probably remove the currently scary
+>> comment about only wanting to change the first link. --[[Joey]] 
+
+>>> Commit 3c2bffe21b91684 in my po branch does this. --[[intrigeri]]
+>>>> Cherry-picked --[[Joey]]