X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/06dc69946fc87ec750693636b94990edd8c899ff..cdd1b58b386da575f3c73ab94ae72e5e66be797b:/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
index 61ec53ea8..5b33f6716 100644
--- a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
+++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
@@ -360,12 +360,47 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :)
 > * 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
@@ -383,4 +418,8 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :)
 >  
 > --[[Joey]] 
 >> 
+>> I'll think about it soon.
+>> 
 >> --[[intrigeri]]
+>>
+>>> Did you get a chance to? --[[Joey]]