diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/plugins/comments/discussion.mdwn')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/plugins/comments/discussion.mdwn | 163 |
1 files changed, 163 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/plugins/comments/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/comments/discussion.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3d7452b9a --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/plugins/comments/discussion.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,163 @@ +## Why internal pages? (unresolved) + +Comments are saved as internal pages, so they can never be edited through the CGI, +only by direct committers. + +> 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]] + +>>> Thinking about it, perhaps one way to address this would be to have the suffix +>>> (e.g. whether commenting on Sandbox creates sandbox/comment1 or sandbox/c1 or +>>> what) be configurable by the wiki admin, in the same way that recentchanges has +>>> recentchangespage => 'recentchanges'? I'd like to see fewer hard-coded page +>>> names in general, really - it seems odd to me that shortcuts and smileys +>>> hard-code the name of the page to look at. Perhaps I could add +>>> discussionpage => 'discussion' too? --[[smcv]] + +>>> (I've now implemented this in my branch. --[[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. --[[Joey]] + +## Formats (resolved) + +The plugin now allows multiple comment formats while still using internal +pages; each comment is saved as a page containing one `\[[!comment]]` directive, +which has a superset of the functionality of [[ikiwiki/directives/format]]. + +## Access control (unresolved?) + +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]] + +> This plugin already uses `check_canedit`, but that function doesn't have a concept +> of different actions. The hack I use is that when a user comments on, say, sandbox, +> I call `check_canedit` for the pseudo-page "sandbox[postcomment]". The +> special `postcomment(glob)` [[ikiwiki/pagespec]] returns true if the page ends with +> "[postcomment]" and the part before (e.g. sandbox) matches the glob. So, you can +> have postcomment(blog/*) or something. (Perhaps instead of taking a glob, postcomment +> should take a pagespec, so you can have postcomment(link(tags/commentable))?) +> +> This is why `anonok_pagespec => 'postcomment(*)'` and `locked_pages => '!postcomment(*)'` +> are necessary to allow anonymous and logged-in editing (respectively). +> +>> I changed that to move the flag out of the page name, and into a variable that the `match_postcomment` +>> function checks for. Other ugliness still applies. :-) --[[Joey]] +> +> This is ugly - one alternative would be to add `check_permission()` that takes a +> page and a verb (create, edit, rename, remove and maybe comment are the ones I +> can think of so far), use that, and port the plugins you mentioned to use that +> API too. This plugin could either call `check_can("$page/comment1", 'create')` or +> call `check_can($page, 'comment')`. +> +> One odd effect of the code structure I've used is that we check for the ability to +> create the page before we actually know what page name we're going to use - when +> posting the comment I just increment a number until I reach an unused one - so +> either the code needs restructuring, or the permission check for 'create' would +> always be for 'comment1' and never 'comment123'. --[[smcv]] + +>> Now resolved, in fact --[[smcv]] + +> Another possibility is to just check for permission to edit (e.g.) `sandbox/comment1`. +> However, this makes the "comments can only be created, not edited" feature completely +> reliant on the fact that internal pages can't be edited. Perhaps there should be a +> `editable_pages` pagespec, defaulting to `'*'`? --[[smcv]] + +## comments directive vs global setting (resolved?) + +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. [This requirement has now been removed --[[smcv]]] + +> 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]] + +>>>> Implemented --[[smcv]] + +>> +>> 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? --[[Joey]] + +>>>> The \[[!comments]] directive is already template-friendly - it expands to +>>>> the contents of the template `comments_embed.tmpl`, possibly with the +>>>> result of an \[[!inline]] appended. I should change `comments_embed.tmpl` +>>>> so it uses a template variable `INLINE` for the inline result rather than +>>>> having the perl code concatenate it, which would allow a bit more +>>>> customization (whether the "post" link was before or after the inline). +>>>> Even if you want comments in page.tmpl, keeping the separate comments_embed.tmpl +>>>> and having a `COMMENTS` variable in page.tmpl might be the way forward, +>>>> since the smaller each templates is, the easier it will be for users +>>>> to maintain a patched set of templates. (I think so, anyway, based on what happens +>>>> with dpkg prompts in Debian packages with monolithic vs split +>>>> conffiles.) --[[smcv]] + +>>>>> I've switched my branch to use page.tmpl instead; see what you think? --[[smcv]] + +## Raw HTML (resolved?) + +Raw HTML was not initially allowed by default (this was configurable). + +> 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. Sanitizing individual posts before +>> they've been htmlized required me to preserve whitespace in the htmlbalance +>> plugin, so I did that. Alternatively, we could htmlize immediately and always +>> save out 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]] |