(like a blog) you can lock all pages for admin-only access, then allow otherwise
unprivileged (or perhaps even anonymous) users to comment on posts.
-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]]
-
->> 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.
-
->> 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]]
-
When using this plugin, you should also enable [[htmlscrubber]] and either [[htmltidy]]
or [[htmlbalance]]. Directives are filtered out by default, to avoid commenters slowing
down the wiki by causing time-consuming processing. As long as the recommended plugins
are enabled, comment authorship should hopefully be unforgeable by CGI users.
-> I'm not sure that raw html should be a problem, as long as the
-> htmlsanitizer and htmlbalanced plugins are enabled. I can see filtering
-> out directives, as a special case. --[[Joey]]
-
->> Right, if I sanitize each post individually, with htmlscrubber and either htmltidy
->> or htmlbalance turned on, then there should be no way the user can forge a comment;
->> I was initially wary of allowing meta directives, but I think those are OK, as long
->> as the comment template puts the \[[!meta author]] at the *end*. Disallowing
->> directives is more a way to avoid commenters causing expensive processing than
->> anything else, at this point.
->>
->> I've rebased the plugin on master, made it sanitize individual posts' content
->> and removed the option to disallow raw HTML. --[[smcv]]
-
->> There might be some use cases for other directives, such as img, in
->> comments.
->>
->> I don't know if meta is "safe" (ie, guaranteed to be inexpensive and not
->> allow users to do annoying things) or if it will continue to be in the
->> future. Hard to predict really, all that can be said with certainty is
->> all directives will contine to be inexpensive and safe enough that it's
->> sensible to allow users to (ab)use them on open wikis.
->> --[[Joey]]
-
-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.
-
-> 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]]
->>
->> 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?
-
The plugin adds a new [[ikiwiki/PageSpec]] match type, `postcomment`, for use
with `anonok_pagespec` from the [[plugins/anonok]] plugin or `locked_pages` from
the [[plugins/lockedit]] plugin. Typical usage would be something like:
to allow anonymous comments (the IP address will be used as the "author").
-> This is still called postcomment, although I've renamed the rest of the plugin
-> to comments as suggested on #ikiwiki --[[smcv]]
+There are some global options for the setup file:
-Optional parameters to the comments directive:
-
-* `commit=no`: by default, comments are committed to version control. Use this to
- disable commits.
-* `allowdirectives=yes`: by default, IkiWiki directives are filtered out. Use this
- to allow directives (avoid enabling any [[plugins/type/slow]] directives if you
- do this).
-* `closed=yes`: use this to prevent new comments while still displaying existing ones.
-* `atom`, `rss`, `feeds`, `feedshow`, `timeformat`, `feedonly`: the same as for [[plugins/inline]]
+* `comments_shown_pagespec`: pages where comments will be displayed inline, e.g. `blog/*`
+ or `*/discussion`.
+* `comments_open_pagespec`: pages where new comments can be posted, e.g.
+ `blog/* and created_after(close_old_comments)` or `*/discussion`
+* `comments_pagename`: if this is e.g. `comment_` (the default), then comments on the
+ [[sandbox]] will be called something like `sandbox/comment_12`
+* `comments_allowdirectives`: if true (default false), comments may contain IkiWiki
+ directives
+* `comments_commit`: if true (default true), comments will be committed to the version
+ control system
This plugin aims to close the [[todo]] item "[[todo/supporting_comments_via_disussion_pages]]",
and is currently available from [[smcv]]'s git repository on git.pseudorandom.co.uk (it's the
Known issues:
* Needs code review
-* The access control via postcomment() is rather strange
+* The access control via postcomment() is rather strange (see [[discussion]] for more details)
* There is some common code cargo-culted from other plugins (notably inline and editpage) which
should probably be shared
-* If the comments directive is removed from a page, comments can still be made on that page,
- and will be committed but not displayed; to disable comments properly you have to set the
- closed="yes" directive parameter (and refresh the wiki), *then* remove the directive if
- desired
+* Joey doesn't think it should necessarily use internal pages (see [[discussion]])
> I haven't done a detailed code review, but I will say I'm pleased you
> avoided re-implementing inline! --[[Joey]]
+
+Wishlist:
+
+* tbm would like anonymous people to be able to enter their name and possibly email
+ address
+* smcv would like an indication of who you're posting as / the ability to log in
+ as someone else (even if anonymous comments are allowed, it'd be nice to be
+ able to choose to log in with a username or OpenID, like in Livejournal);
+ perhaps editpage needs this too
+
+Fixed issues:
+
+* Joey didn't think the `\[[!comments]]` directive was appropriate; comments now appear
+ on pages selected with a [[ikiwiki/pagespec]]
+* Joey thought that raw HTML should always be allowed; it now is