(like a blog) you can lock all pages for admin-only access, then allow otherwise
unprivileged (or perhaps even anonymous) users to comment on posts.
-Comments are saved as internal pages, so they can never be edited through the CGI,
-only by direct committers. Currently, comments are always in [[ikiwiki/markdown]].
-
-> 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.
->> The worst problem with it though is that you have to assume the pages
->> are mdwn (or `default_pageext`) and not support other formats. --[[Joey]]
-
->> Well, you could always have `comment1._mdwn`, `comment2._creole` etc. and
->> alter the htmlize logic so that the `mdwn` hook is called for both `mdwn`
->> and `_mdwn` (assuming this is not already the case). I'm not convinced
->> that multi-format comments are a killer feature, though - part of the point
->> of this plugin, in my mind, is that it's less flexible than the full power
->> of ikiwiki and gives users fewer options. This could be construed
->> to be a feature, for people who don't care how flexible the technology is
->> and just want a simple way to leave a comment. The FormattingHelp page
->> assumes you're writing 100% Markdown in any case...
->>
->> Internal pages do too many things, perhaps: they suppress generation of
->> HTML pages, they disable editing over the web, and they have a different
->> namespace of htmlize hooks. I think the first two of those are useful
->> for this plugin, and the last is harmless; you seem to think the first
->> is useful, and the other two are harmful. --[[smcv]]
-
->> 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_pages => 'postcomment(*)'` and `locked_pages => '!postcomment(*)'`
->> are necessary to allow anonymous and logged-in editing (respectively).
->>
->> 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]]
-
->> 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 `'*'`?
-
When using this plugin, you should also enable [[htmlscrubber]] and either [[htmltidy]]
or [[htmlbalance]]. Directives are filtered out by default, to avoid commenters slowing
down the wiki by causing time-consuming processing. As long as the recommended plugins
>> sensible to allow users to (ab)use them on open wikis.
>> --[[Joey]]
-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]]
-
The plugin adds a new [[ikiwiki/PageSpec]] match type, `postcomment`, for use
with `anonok_pagespec` from the [[plugins/anonok]] plugin or `locked_pages` from
the [[plugins/lockedit]] plugin. Typical usage would be something like:
to allow anonymous comments (the IP address will be used as the "author").
-> This is still called postcomment, although I've renamed the rest of the plugin
-> to comments as suggested on #ikiwiki --[[smcv]]
-
There are some global options for the setup file:
-* comments_shown_pagespec: pages where comments will be displayed inline, e.g. `blog/*`
+* `comments_shown_pagespec`: pages where comments will be displayed inline, e.g. `blog/*`
or `*/discussion`.
-* comments_open_pagespec: pages where new comments can be posted, e.g.
+* `comments_open_pagespec`: pages where new comments can be posted, e.g.
`blog/* and created_after(close_old_comments)` or `*/discussion`
-* comments_pagename: if this is e.g. `comment_` (the default), then comments on the
+* `comments_pagename`: if this is e.g. `comment_` (the default), then comments on the
[[sandbox]] will be called something like `sandbox/comment_12`
-* comments_allowdirectives: if true (default false), comments may contain IkiWiki
+* `comments_allowdirectives`: if true (default false), comments may contain IkiWiki
directives
-* comments_commit: if true (default true), comments will be committed to the version
+* `comments_commit`: if true (default true), comments will be committed to the version
control system
This plugin aims to close the [[todo]] item "[[todo/supporting_comments_via_disussion_pages]]",
sipb-www / ikiwiki.git / blobdiff