diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn | 134 |
1 files changed, 119 insertions, 15 deletions
diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn index 5c8e74fa6..156cd7ad8 100644 --- a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn +++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn @@ -68,6 +68,9 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]] > you (since the requirements for that CGI interface change depending > on the implementation). I agree that this is ugly, though. -s +>> Would you accept a version where the albumimage "viewer" pages +>> could be 0 bytes long, at least until metadata gets added? -s + * With each viewer page having next/prev links, I can see how you were having the scalability issues with ikiwiki's data structures earlier! @@ -80,7 +83,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]] >> these can be presence dependencies, which will probably help with >> avoiding rebuilds of a page if the next/prev page is changed. >> (Unless you use img to make the thumbnails for those links, then it ->> would rebuild the thumbnails anyway. Have not looked at the code.) --[[Joey]] +>> would rebuild the thumbnails anyway. Have not looked at the code.) --[[Joey]] * And doesn't each viewer page really depend on every other page in the same albumsection? If a new page is added, the next/prev links @@ -108,6 +111,11 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]] >> metadata. Er, I mean, I have a cheezy hack in `add_depends` now that does >> it to deal with a similar case. --[[Joey]] +>>> I think I was misunderstanding how early you have to call `add_depends`? +>>> The critical thing I missed was that if you're scanning a page, you're +>>> going to rebuild it in a moment anyway, so it doesn't matter if you +>>> have no idea what it depends on until the rebuild phase. -s + * One thing I do like about having individual pages per image is that they can each have their own comments, etc. @@ -121,9 +129,25 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]] album. Think tags. So it seems it would be better to have the album directive control what pages it includes (a la inline). -> See note above about pagespecs not being very safe early on. -> You did merge my inline-with-pagenames feature, which is safe to use -> at scan time, though. +> I'm inclined to fix this by constraining images to be subpages of exactly +> one album: if they're subpages of 2+ nested albums then they're only +> considered to be in the deepest-nested one (i.e. longest URL), and if +> they're not in any album then that's a usage error. This would +> also make prev/next links sane. +> +> If you want to reference images from elsewhere in the wiki and display +> them as if in an album, then you can use an ordinary inline with +> the same template that the album would use, and I'll make sure the +> templates are set up so this works. +> +> (Implementation detail: this means that an image X/Y/Z/W/V, where X and +> Y are albums, Z does not exist and W exists but is not an album, +> would have a content dependency on Y, a presence dependency on Z +> and a content dependency on W.) +> +> Perhaps I should just restrict to having the album images be direct +> subpages of the album, although that would mean breaking some URLs +> on the existing website I'm doing all this work for... -s * Putting a few of the above thoughts together, my ideal album system seems to be one where I can just drop the images into a directory and @@ -137,15 +161,57 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]] > Putting a JPEG in the web form is not an option from my point of > view :-) but perhaps there could just be a "web-editable" flag supplied > by plugins, and things could be changed to respect it. -> + +>> Replying to myself: would you accept patches to support +>> `hook(type => 'htmlize', editable => 0, ...)` in editpage? This would +>> essentially mean "this is an opaque binary: you can delete it +>> or rename it, and it might have its own special editing UI, but you +>> can never get it in a web form". +>> +>> On the other hand, that essentially means we need to reimplement +>> editpage in order to edit the sidecar files that contain the metadata. +>> Having already done one partial reimplementation of editpage (for +>> comments) I'm in no hurry to do another. +>> +>> I suppose another possibility would be to register hook +>> functions to be called by editpage when it loads and saves the +>> file. In this case, the loading hook would be to discard +>> the binary and use filter() instead, and the saving conversion +>> would be to write the edited content into the metadata sidecar +>> (creating it if necessary). +>> +>> I'd also need to make editpage (and also comments!) not allow the +>> creation of a file of type albumjpg, albumgif etc., which is something +>> I previously missed; and I'd need to make attachment able to +>> upload-and-rename. +>> -s + > In a way, what you really want for metadata is to have it in the album > page, so you can batch-edit the whole lot by editing one file (this > does mean that editing the album necessarily causes each of its viewers > to be rebuilt, but in practice that happens anyway). -s -> ->> Yes, that would make some sense.. It also allows putting one image in ->> two albums, with different caption etc. (Maybe for different audiences.) + +>> Replying to myself: in practice that *doesn't* happen anyway. Having +>> the metadata in the album page is somewhat harmful because it means +>> that changing the title of one image causes every viewer in the album +>> to be rebuilt, whereas if you have a metadata file per image, only +>> the album itself, plus the next and previous viewers, need +>> rebuilding. So, I think a file per image is the way to go. >> +>> Ideally we'd have some way to "batch-edit" the metadata of all +>> images in an album at once, except that would make conflict +>> resolution much more complicated to deal with; maybe just +>> give up and scream about mid-air collisions in that case? +>> (That's apparently good enough for Bugzilla, but not really +>> for ikiwiki). -s + +>> Yes, [all metadata in one file] would make some sense.. It also allows putting one image in +>> two albums, with different caption etc. (Maybe for different audiences.) +>> --[[Joey]] + +>>> Eek. No, that's not what I had in mind at all; the metadata ends up +>>> in the "viewer" page, so it's necessarily the same for all albums. -s + >> It would probably be possible to add a new dependency type, and thus >> make ikiwiki smart about noticing whether the metadata has actually >> changed, and only update those viewers where it has. But the dependency @@ -164,23 +230,26 @@ mushroom and snake. > etc as the htmlize extensions. May need some fixes to ikiwiki to support > that. --[[Joey]] +>> foo.albumjpg (etc.) for images, and foo._albummeta (with +>> `keepextension => 1`) for sidecar metadata files, seems viable. -s + Files in git repo: * index.mdwn * memes.mdwn -* memes/badger.albumimage (a renamed JPEG) +* memes/badger.albumjpg (a renamed JPEG) * memes/badger/comment_1._comment * memes/badger/comment_2._comment -* memes/mushroom.albumimage (a renamed GIF) -* memes/mushroom.meta (sidecar file with metadata) -* memes/snake.albumimage (a renamed video) +* memes/mushroom.albumgif (a renamed GIF) +* memes/mushroom._albummeta (sidecar file with metadata) +* memes/snake.albummov (a renamed video) Files in web content: * index.html * memes/index.html * memes/96x96-badger.jpg (from img) -* memes/96x96-mushroom.jpg (from img) +* memes/96x96-mushroom.gif (from img) * memes/96x96-snake.jpg (from img, hacked up to use totem-video-thumbnailer :-) ) * memes/badger/index.html (including comments) * memes/badger.jpg @@ -200,10 +269,28 @@ way to get them rendered anyway. > the image, as well as eg, smiley trying to munge it in sanitize. > --[[Joey]] +>> As long as nothing has a filter() hook that assumes it's already +>> text... filters are run in arbitrary order. We seem to be OK so far +>> though. +>> +>> If this is the route I take, I propose to have the result of filter() +>> be the contents of the sidecar metadata file (empty string if none), +>> with the `\[[!albumimage]]` directive (which no longer requires +>> arguments) prepended if not already present. This would mean that +>> meta directives in the metadata file would work as normal, and it +>> would be possible to insert text both before and after the viewer +>> if desired. The result of filter() would also be a sensible starting +>> point for editing, and the result of editing could be diverted into +>> the metadata file. -s + do=edit&page=memes/badger needs to not put the JPG in a text box: somehow divert or override the normal edit CGI by telling it that .albumimage files are not editable in the usual way? +> Something I missed here is that editpage also needs to be told that +> creating new files of type albumjpg, albumgif etc. is not allowed +> either! -s + Every image needs to depend on, and link to, the next and previous images, which is a bit tricky. In previous thinking about this I'd been applying the overly strict constraint that the ordered sequence of pages in each @@ -217,6 +304,9 @@ in order. > memoization to avoid each image in an album building the same list. > I sense that I may be missing a subtelty though. --[[Joey]] +>> I think I was misunderstanding how early you have to call `add_depends` +>> as mentioned above. -s + Perhaps restricting to "the images in an album A must match A/*" would be useful; then the unordered superset could just be "A/*". Your "albums via tags" idea would be nice too though, particularly for feature @@ -233,6 +323,9 @@ album, or something? > Ugh, yeah, that is a problem. Perhaps wanting to support that was just > too ambitious. --[[Joey]] +>> I propose to restrict to having images be subpages of albums, as +>> described above. -s + Requiring renaming is awkward for non-technical Windows/Mac users, with both platforms' defaults being to hide extensions; however, this could be circumvented by adding some sort of hook in attachment to turn things into @@ -244,13 +337,24 @@ extensions visible is a "don't do that then" situation :-) > with an extension. (Or allow specifying a full pagespec, > but I hesitate to seriously suggest that.) --[[Joey]] +>> I think that might be a terrifying idea for another day. If we can +>> mutate the extension during the `attach` upload, that'd be enough; +>> I don't think people who are skilled enough to use git/svn/..., +>> but not skilled enough to tell Explorer to show file extensions, +>> represent a major use case. -s + Ideally attachment could also be configured to upload into a specified underlay, so that photos don't have to be in your source-code control (you might want that, but I don't!). +> Replying to myself: perhaps best done as an orthogonal extension +> to attach? -s + Things that would be nice, and are probably possible: * make the "Edit page" link on viewers divert to album-specific CGI instead - of just failing or not appearing + of just failing or not appearing (probably possible via pagetemplate) + * some way to deep-link to memes/badger.jpg with a wikilink, without knowing a - priori that it's secretly a JPEG + priori that it's secretly a JPEG (probably harder than it looks - you'd + have to make a directive for it and it's probably not worth it) |