--[[intrigeri]]
> 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`. (Reviewed the first 520 lines, up to injected
-> functions.)
+> mergeable.
>
> * Is it worth trying to fix compatability with `indexpages`?
>>
>> 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.
+>>
+>> That's right, fixed.
+>>
> * 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?
+>>
+>> It relies on IkiWiki::Render's `genpage` as this function sets the
+>> `discussionlink` template param iff it considers a discussion link
+>> should appear on the current page. That's why I'm testing
+>> `$template->param('discussionlink')`.
+>>
+>>> Maybe I was really wondering why it says it could lead to a broken
+>>> link if the cgiurl is disabled. I think I see why now: Discussionlink
+>>> will be set to a link to an existing disucssion page, even if cgi is
+>>> disabled -- but there's no guarantee of a translated discussion page
+>>> existing in that case. *However*, htmllink actually checks
+>>> for this case, and will avoid generating a broken link so AFAICS, the
+>>> comment is actually innacurate.. what will really happen in this case
+>>> is discussionlink will be set to a non-link translation of
+>>> "discussion". Also, I consider `$config{cgi}` and `%links` (etc)
+>>> documented parts of the plugin interface, which won't change; po could
+>>> rely on them to avoid this minor problem. --[[Joey]]
+>
> * 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.
+>>
+>> On the other hand, allowing one to "remove" a translation would
+>> probably lead to misunderstandings, as such a "removed" translation
+>> page would appear back as soon as it is "removed" (with no strings
+>> translated, though). I think an admin would be in a position to
+>> delete the spammy `.po` file by hand using whatever VCS is in use.
+>> Not that I'd really care, but I am slightly in favour of the way
+>> it currently works.
+>>
+>>> That would definitly be confusing. It sounds to me like if we end up
+>>> needing to allow web-based deletion of spammy translations, it will
+>>> need improvements to the deletion UI to de-confuse that. It's fine to
+>>> put that off until needed --[[Joey]]
+>>
+> * Re the meta title escaping issue worked around by `change`.
+> I suppose this does not only affect meta, but other things
+> at scan time too. Also, handling it only on rebuild feels
+> suspicious -- a refresh could involve changes to multiple
+> pages and trigger the same problem, I think. Also, exposing
+> this rebuild to the user seems really ugly, not confidence inducing.
+>
+> So I wonder if there's a better way. Such as making po, at scan time,
+> re-run the scan hooks, passing them modified content (either converted
+> from po to mdwn or with the escaped stuff cheaply de-escaped). (Of
+> course the scan hook would need to avoid calling itself!)
+>
+> (This doesn't need to block the merge, but I hope it can be addressed
+> eventually..)
>
> --[[Joey]]
>>
+>> I'll think about it soon.
+>>
>> --[[intrigeri]]
+>>
+>>> Did you get a chance to? --[[Joey]]