diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/bugs/pagetitle_function_does_not_respect_meta_titles.mdwn | 5 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn | 19 |
2 files changed, 24 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/bugs/pagetitle_function_does_not_respect_meta_titles.mdwn b/doc/bugs/pagetitle_function_does_not_respect_meta_titles.mdwn index c54376aa1..042d6a20c 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/pagetitle_function_does_not_respect_meta_titles.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/pagetitle_function_does_not_respect_meta_titles.mdwn @@ -272,3 +272,8 @@ So, looking at your meta branch: --[[Joey]] >>> it in a way that leaves room for #2. >>> >>> --[[intrigeri]] +>>> +>>>> I agree, we should concentrate on getting just enough functionality +>>>> for the po plugin, because I want to merge the po plugin soon. +>>>> If #2 gets tackled later, we will certianly have all kinds of fun. +>>>> no matter what is done for the po plugin. --[[Joey]] diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn index 13176aac4..5b33f6716 100644 --- a/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn +++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/po.mdwn @@ -372,6 +372,18 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :) >> should appear on the current page. That's why I'm testing >> `$template->param('discussionlink')`. >> +>>> Maybe I was really wondering why it says it could lead to a broken +>>> link if the cgiurl is disabled. I think I see why now: Discussionlink +>>> will be set to a link to an existing disucssion page, even if cgi is +>>> disabled -- but there's no guarantee of a translated discussion page +>>> existing in that case. *However*, htmllink actually checks +>>> for this case, and will avoid generating a broken link so AFAICS, the +>>> comment is actually innacurate.. what will really happen in this case +>>> is discussionlink will be set to a non-link translation of +>>> "discussion". Also, I consider `$config{cgi}` and `%links` (etc) +>>> documented parts of the plugin interface, which won't change; po could +>>> rely on them to avoid this minor problem. --[[Joey]] +> > * 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. @@ -383,6 +395,11 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :) >> 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. +>> +>>> That would definitly be confusing. It sounds to me like if we end up +>>> needing to allow web-based deletion of spammy translations, it will +>>> need improvements to the deletion UI to de-confuse that. It's fine to +>>> put that off until needed --[[Joey]] >> > * Re the meta title escaping issue worked around by `change`. > I suppose this does not only affect meta, but other things @@ -404,3 +421,5 @@ daring a timid "please pull"... or rather, please review again :) >> I'll think about it soon. >> >> --[[intrigeri]] +>> +>>> Did you get a chance to? --[[Joey]] |