X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=doc%2Fplugins%2Fcontrib%2Fpo.mdwn;h=13176aac4bfb40147880e2b4798e293dd66c09ed;hb=f632cb2f8f7b86ede3689fb98b0da4cf685e0a15;hp=6cd097e94b1233930af2cb6be4e0ea3736bcada8;hpb=be63bed593877db0f9a511182ea8329993d3d019;p=ikiwiki.git

diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
index 6cd097e94..13176aac4 100644
--- a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
+++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn
@@ -287,6 +287,8 @@ finish it at some point in the first quarter of 2009. --[[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
@@ -318,3 +320,87 @@ 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')`.
+>> 
+> * 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.
+>> 
+> * 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]]