1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
|
Some inconsistences around the toplevel [[index]] page:
* [[ikiwiki]] is a separate page; links to [[ikiwiki]] should better go to
the [[index]] though.
* The toplevel [[ikiwiki/Discussion]] page has some weird parentlinks
behavior. This could be special cased around with the following patch.
However, I'm unsure if I like the idea of more special cases around this.
It would be better to find a way to make the toplevel index page not be a
special case at all.
Here is a patch:
--- IkiWiki/Render.pm (revision 1187)
+++ IkiWiki/Render.pm (working copy)
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@
my $path="";
my $skip=1;
return if $page eq 'index'; # toplevel
+ $path=".." if $page=~s/^index\///;
foreach my $dir (reverse split("/", $page)) {
if (! $skip) {
$path.="../";
---
> I would like to suggest another tack, namely a bigger, better special case.
> The basic idea is that all indices of the form foo/bar/index get the wiki path foo/bar.
> This makes some things more elegant:
>
> * All files having to do with foo/bar are in the foo/bar directory, rather
> than the (admittedly minor) wart of having the index be in foo/.
> * This sort of addresses [[bugs/broken_parentlinks]] in that example/ is
> guaranteed to be a valid path. (There might be no index there, though.)
> * This is more in line with standard HTML practice, as far as I understand it,
> namely that linking to a/b means a/b/index.html rather than a/b.html.
>
> This would change the inline plugin in strange ways -- I think if foo/index.html
> contains \[[inline "* and !*/Discussion"]], it should skip inlining foo/index.html
> explicitly, but would inline index pages in child directories
> foo/bar/baz/index.html as bar/baz.
>
> It always bothers me that foo/bar/ files need a foo/bar.html in front of them,
> rather than a foo/bar/index.html, as is (to my mind) traditional.
>
> Ethan
>
> Hmm, now I've had time to think about this, and this does conflict pretty hard with foo.html/Discussion
> pages. Well, back to the drawing board.
>
> Well, it seems unlikely that you'll have both foo/bar.html and foo/bar/index.html,
> so why not accept either as foo/bar? This would both preserve backwards
> compatibility, as well as allow foo/bar/Discussion.
>
> Ethan
>
> No, in order for this to work, the wiki path foo/bar/baz could be any of:
>
> * foo/bar/baz.html
> * foo/index/bar/index/baz.html
> * foo/bar/index/baz.html
> * foo/bar/index/baz/index.html
>
> Or many others. Which is probably even hackier than having both foo.html and foo/.
>
> Ethan
|