X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/aba655c6e0d5c4b0eaa3d113129d6de58f4541c2..cdd1b58b386da575f3c73ab94ae72e5e66be797b:/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn index f2d46c391..5b33f6716 100644 --- a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn +++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn @@ -248,6 +248,22 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]] >> >>> My wording was unclear, I meant exposing. --[[Joey]] >>> +>>>> I guess I still don't know Perl's `our` enough to understand clearly. +>>>> No matter whether these variables are declared with `my` or `our`, +>>>> any plugin can `use IkiWiki::Render` and then access +>>>> `$IkiWiki::backlinks`, as already does e.g. the pagestat plugin. +>>>> So I guess your problem is not with letting plugins use these +>>>> variables, but with them being visible for every piece of +>>>> (possibly external) code called from `Render.pm`. Am I right? +>>>> If I understand clearly, using a brace block to lexically enclose +>>>> these two `our` declarations, alongside with the `calculate_backlinks` +>>>> and `backlinks` subs definitions, would be a proper solution, wouldn't +>>>> it? --[[intrigeri]] +>>>> +>>>>> No, %backlinks and the backlinks() function are not the same thing. +>>>>> The variable is lexically scoped; only accessible from inside +>>>>> `Render.pm` --[[Joey]] +>>>> > * What is this `IkiWiki::nicepagetitle` and why are you > injecting it into that namespace when only your module uses it? > Actually, I can't even find a caller of it in your module. @@ -258,7 +274,22 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]] >> >>> It would probably be good if I could merge this branch without >>> having to worry about also immediatly merging that one. --[[Joey]] ->> +>>> +>>>> I removed all dependencies on my `meta` branch from the `po` one. +>>>> This implied removing the `po_translation_status_in_links` and +>>>> `po_strictly_refresh_backlinks` features, and every link text is now +>>>> displayed in the master language. I believe the removed features really +>>>> enhance user experience of a translatable wiki, that's why I was +>>>> initially supposing the `meta` branch would be merged first. +>>>> IMHO, we'll need to come back to this quite soon after `po` is merged. +>>>> --[[intrigeri]] +>>>> +>>>> Maybe you should keep those features in a meta-po branch? +>>>> I did a cursory review of your meta last night, have some issues with it, +>>>> but this page isn't the place for a detailed review. --[[Joey]] +>>>> +>>>>> Done. --[[intrigeri]] +>>> > * I'm very fearful of the `add_depends` in `postscan`. > Does this make every page depend on every page that links > to it? Won't this absurdly bloat the dependency pagespecs @@ -277,6 +308,9 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]] >> help having a nice and consistent translated wiki, but as it can >> also involve problems, I just turned it into an option. >> +>>> This has been completely removed for now due to the removal of +>>> the dependency on my `meta` branch. --[[intrigeri]] +>> > * The po4a Suggests should be versioned to the first version > that can be used safely, and that version documented in > `plugins/po.mdwn`. @@ -286,3 +320,106 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[intrigeri]] >> --[[intrigeri]] > > --[[Joey]] + +I reverted the `%backlinks` and `$backlinks_calculated` exposing. +The issue they were solving probably will arise again when I'll work +on my meta branch again (i.e. when the simplified po one is merged), +but the po thing is supposed to work without these ugly `our`. +Seems like it was the last unaddressed item from Joey's review, so I'm +daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :) +--[[intrigeri]] + +> Ok, I've reviewed and merged into my own po branch. It's looking very +> mergeable. +> +> * Is it worth trying to fix compatability with `indexpages`? +>> +>> Supporting `usedirs` being enabled or disabled was already quite +>> hard IIRC, so supporting all four combinations of `usedirs` and +>> `indexpages` settings will probably be painful. I propose we forget +>> about it until someone reports he/she badly needs it, and then +>> we'll see what can be done. +>> +> * Would it make sense to go ahead and modify `page.tmpl` to use +> OTHERLANGUAGES and PERCENTTRANSLATED, instead of documenting how to modify it? +>> +>> Done in my branch. +>> +> * Would it be better to disable po support for pages that use unsupported +> or poorly-supported markup languages? +> +>> I prefer keeping it enabled, as: +>> +>> * most wiki markups "almost work" +>> * when someone needs one of these to be fully supported, it's not +>> that hard to add dedicated support for it to po4a; if it were +>> 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]]