X-Git-Url: https://sipb.mit.edu/gitweb.cgi/ikiwiki.git/blobdiff_plain/c5a7d98b54623cf501bd2cd6c188641c406318ff..d6b87bd25ec6f466c6d3c486b4e923377ad8ee2a:/doc/plugins/contrib/comments.mdwn diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/comments.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/comments.mdwn index 6ba181232..a7a509ebb 100644 --- a/doc/plugins/contrib/comments.mdwn +++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/comments.mdwn @@ -5,71 +5,11 @@ This plugin adds "blog-style" comments. The intention is that on a non-wiki site (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]] - 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 are enabled, comment authorship should hopefully be unforgeable by CGI users. -> 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. --[[smcv]] - -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. - -> 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. ->> ->> 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]] - 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: @@ -82,33 +22,62 @@ to allow non-admin users to comment on pages, but not edit anything. You can als 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]] - -Optional parameters to the comments directive: - -* `commit=no`: by default, comments are committed to version control. Use this to - disable commits. -* `allowdirectives=yes`: by default, IkiWiki directives are filtered out. Use this - to allow directives (avoid enabling any [[plugins/type/slow]] directives if you - do this). -* `closed=yes`: use this to prevent new comments while still displaying existing ones. -* `atom`, `rss`, `feeds`, `feedshow`, `timeformat`, `feedonly`: the same as for [[plugins/inline]] +There are some global options for the setup file: + +* `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. + `blog/* and created_after(close_old_comments)` or `*/discussion` +* `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 + directives +* `comments_commit`: if true (default true), comments will be committed to the version + control system +* `comments_allowauthor`: if true (default false), anonymous commenters may specify a + name for themselves, and the \[[!meta author]] and \[[!meta authorurl]] directives + will not be overridden by the comments plugin + +Templates that will display comments (by default that means `comments_display.tmpl`) +can use the following additional ``s: + +* `COMMENTUSER`: the authenticated/verified user name, or undefined if the user was not signed in +* `COMMENTIP`: the remote IP address, or undefined if not known (this is not currently recorded + for users who are signed in, who are assumed to be vaguely accountable) +* `COMMENTAUTHOR`: a "prettier" version of the authenticated/verified user name (e.g. OpenIDs are + formatted the same way as in [[RecentChanges]]), or the result of localizing "Anonymous" if the + user was not signed in +* `COMMENTAUTHORURL`: if the user was signed in with an OpenID, that URL; if the user was signed + in with some other username, a CGI URL that redirects to their user page (if any) + +This plugin also adds a `\[[!comment]]` directive which is used when storing comments. This +directive shouldn't be used on pages that are edited in the usual way. This plugin aims to close the [[todo]] item "[[todo/supporting_comments_via_disussion_pages]]", and is currently available from [[smcv]]'s git repository on git.pseudorandom.co.uk (it's the -`postcomment` branch). +`comments-rebase1` branch). A demo wiki with the plugin enabled is running at +. Known issues: * Needs code review -* The access control via postcomment() is rather strange +* The access control via postcomment() is rather strange (see [[discussion]] for more details) * There is some common code cargo-culted from other plugins (notably inline and editpage) which should probably be shared -* If the comments directive is removed from a page, comments can still be made on that page, - and will be committed but not displayed; to disable comments properly you have to set the - closed="yes" directive parameter (and refresh the wiki), *then* remove the directive if - desired +* Joey doesn't think it should necessarily use internal pages (see [[discussion]]) +* `\[[!comment]]` should perhaps be `\[[!_comment]], or a special filter/htmlize hook rather + than being a directive at all > I haven't done a detailed code review, but I will say I'm pleased you > avoided re-implementing inline! --[[Joey]] + +Fixed issues: + +* Joey didn't think the `\[[!comments]]` directive was appropriate; comments now appear + on pages selected with a [[ikiwiki/pagespec]] +* Joey thought that raw HTML should always be allowed; it now is +* tbm wanted anonymous people to be able to enter their name and possibly email + address; a name and website can now be supplied +* There is now an indication of who you're signed in as +* Each comment is now one big \[[!comment]] directive invocation, avoiding previous + issues with unambiguous and un-spoofable metadata