X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/cd5bf7eb7f74c2414a87c77141ed0c502ff7f464..c4a2d93115b6a7826b21f13b9d29bd947551c6c6:/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn?ds=sidebyside

diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn
index 156cd7ad8..9720589b4 100644
--- a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 * Needing to create the albumimage "viewer" pages for each photo
   seems like it will become a pain. Everyone will need to come up
   with their own automation for it, and then there's the question
-  of how to automate it when uploading attachments.
+  of how to automate it when uploading attachments. -J
 
 > There's already a script (ikiwiki-album) to populate a git
 > checkout with skeleton "viewer" pages; I was planning to make a
@@ -69,11 +69,20 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 > on the implementation). I agree that this is ugly, though. -s
 
 >> Would you accept a version where the albumimage "viewer" pages
->> could be 0 bytes long, at least until metadata gets added? -s
+>> could be 0 bytes long, at least until metadata gets added?
+>>
+>> The more I think about the "binaries as first-class pages" approach,
+>> the more subtle interactions I notice with other plugins. I
+>> think I'm up to needing changes to editpage, comments, attachment
+>> and recentchanges, plus adjustments to img and Render (to reduce
+>> duplication when thumbnailing an image with a strange extension
+>> while simultaneously changing the extension, and to hardlink/copy
+>> an image with a strange extension to a differing target filename
+>> with the normal extension, respectively). -s
 
 * With each viewer page having next/prev links, I can see how you
   were having the scalability issues with ikiwiki's data structures
-  earlier!
+  earlier! -J
 
 > Yeah, I think they're a basic requirement from a UI point of view
 > though (although they don't necessarily have to be full wikilinks).
@@ -88,7 +97,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 * And doesn't each viewer page really depend on every other page in the
   same albumsection? If a new page is added, the next/prev links
   may need to be updated, for example. If so, there will be much
-  unnecessary rebuilding.
+  unnecessary rebuilding. -J
 
 > albumsections are just a way to insert headings into the flow of
 > photos, so they don't actually affect dependencies.
@@ -117,7 +126,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 >>> have no idea what it depends on until the rebuild phase. -s
 
 * One thing I do like about having individual pages per image is
-  that they can each have their own comments, etc.
+  that they can each have their own comments, etc. -J
 
 > Yes; also, they can be wikilinked. I consider those to be
 > UI requirements. -s
@@ -127,7 +136,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
   album, but then anyone who can write to any other page on the wiki can
   add an image to it. 2: I may want an image to appear in more than one
   album. Think tags. So it seems it would be better to have the album
-  directive control what pages it includes (a la inline).
+  directive control what pages it includes (a la inline). -J
 
 > I'm inclined to fix this by constraining images to be subpages of exactly
 > one album: if they're subpages of 2+ nested albums then they're only
@@ -156,7 +165,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
   etc. (Real pity we can't just put arbitrary metadata into the images
   themselves.) This is almost pointing toward making the images first-class
   wiki page sources. Hey, it worked for po! :) But the metadata and editing
-  problems probably don't really allow that.
+  problems probably don't really allow that. -J
 
 > Putting a JPEG in the web form is not an option from my point of
 > view :-) but perhaps there could just be a "web-editable" flag supplied
@@ -350,6 +359,10 @@ underlay, so that photos don't have to be in your source-code control
 > Replying to myself: perhaps best done as an orthogonal extension
 > to attach? -s
 
+> Yet another non-obvious thing this design would need to do is to find
+> some way to have each change to memes/badger._albummeta show up as a
+> change to memes/badger in `recentchanges`. -s
+
 Things that would be nice, and are probably possible:
 
 * make the "Edit page" link on viewers divert to album-specific CGI instead