web commit by JoshTriplett: Mention server for OFTC.

[git.ikiwiki.info.git] / doc / patchqueue / index.html_allowed.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/patchqueue/index.html_allowed.mdwn b/doc/patchqueue/index.html_allowed.mdwn
index ad7a4ae79d6c75553e3326e0a1a41c2b65f61c47..5904b6096884a8b0a09015a71dc7e16cd8d51cf4 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/patchqueue/index.html_allowed.mdwn
+++ b/doc/patchqueue/index.html_allowed.mdwn
@@ -274,6 +274,30 @@ I'll attach an updated and slightly modified version below.
   >> Can someone elaborate on this? What's broken about it? Will pages
   >> foo/index/index.html include foo/index in their parentlinks? --Ethan
 
   >> Can someone elaborate on this? What's broken about it? Will pages
   >> foo/index/index.html include foo/index in their parentlinks? --Ethan
 

+  >>> Presently the patch does not move `foo/index.type` as `foo/index/index.html`, but renders
+  >>> it as `foo/index.html`, not because I particularly want that (except for the top-level one, of
+  >>> course), but because it could be done :). This, however, conflicts with a `foo.mdwn`
+  >>> rendered as `foo/index.html`. The easiest and cleanest way to fix this, is to simply
+  >>> not handle `index` in such a special manner -- except for the top-level one. --[[tuomov]]
+
+  >>>> Oh, I see, this patch doesn't address wanting to use foo/index.mdwn as 
+  >>>> an input page. Hmm. --Ethan
+
+  >>>>> No, it doesn't. I originally also was after that, but after discussing the
+  >>>>> complexities of supporting that with Joey, came up with this simpler scheme
+  >>>>> without many of those issues. It is the output that I primarily care about, anyway,
+  >>>>> and I do, in fact, find the present input file organisation quite nice. The output
+  >>>>> locations just aren't very good for conversion of an existing site to ikiwiki, and do
+  >>>>> make for rather ugly URLs with the .html extensions. (I do often type some URLs
+  >>>>> out of memory, when they're gone from the browser's completion history, and the
+  >>>>> .html makes that more laboursome.)
+
+  >>>>>> I support your decision, but now this wiki page serves two different patches :).
+  >>>>>> Can we split them somehow?
+  >>>>>> What are the complexities involved?
+  >>>>>> I think I overcomplicated it a little with my patch, and Per Bothner's gets 
+  >>>>>> much closer to the heart of it. --Ethan
+

 * This does make the resulting wikis much less browsable directly on the
   filesystem, since `dir` to `dir/index.html` conversion is only handled by web
   servers and so you end up browsing to a directory index all the time.
 * This does make the resulting wikis much less browsable directly on the
   filesystem, since `dir` to `dir/index.html` conversion is only handled by web
   servers and so you end up browsing to a directory index all the time.


@@ -290,10 +314,26 @@ I'll attach an updated and slightly modified version below.
      >> index.html yet another option. I'm not _that_ fond of optioons
      >> however. --[[Joey]]
 
      >> index.html yet another option. I'm not _that_ fond of optioons
      >> however. --[[Joey]]
 

+     >>> It is worth noting, that with this patch, you _can_ render the local
+     >>> copy in the present manner, while rendering the Web copy under
+     >>> directories. So no extra options are really needed for local browsing, 
+     >>> unless you also want to serve the same copy over the Web, which I
+     >>> doubt. --[[tuomov]]
+

 * Some of the generated links are missing the trailing / , which is
   innefficient since it leads to a http redirect when clicking on that
   link. Seems to be limited to ".." links, and possibly only to
   parentlinks. (Already fixed it for "." links.)
 * Some of the generated links are missing the trailing / , which is
   innefficient since it leads to a http redirect when clicking on that
   link. Seems to be limited to ".." links, and possibly only to
   parentlinks. (Already fixed it for "." links.)

+
+      > The solution seems to be to add to `urlto` the following snippet,
+      > which might also help with the next point. (Sorry, no updated patch
+      > yet. Should be on my way out in the cold anyway...)
+
+        if ( !length $to ) {
+                return baseurl($from);
+        }
+      
+

 * It calles abs2rel about 16% more often with the patch, which makes it
   a bit slower, since abs2rel is not very efficient. (This omits abs2rel
   calls that might be memoized away already.) This seems to be due to one
 * It calles abs2rel about 16% more often with the patch, which makes it
   a bit slower, since abs2rel is not very efficient. (This omits abs2rel
   calls that might be memoized away already.) This seems to be due to one