Re: event reports visibility

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>  Please find attached the diff I promised for the events pages, to make
> the reports more visible.  It will be added to the index pages at the
> end of the line as [Report].

Thanks a lot.

>  It includes two ways to see if there is a report for that event:
> -) First is to grep through the event page and look for a
>    <a href="$(WML_SRC_BASENAME)-report"> link, extract the URL from
>    there.

I'd rather scan the directory for a foo-report.wml file which will be
the report for foo.wml.

I'd also like such a link to be added automatically to the events page
when it is a past_event and there is such a file (or it exists in the
english dir).

> -) Second is for special cases reports that are linked offsite. I
>    introduced a new tag for them, called rep.  It just works like the
>    <a> tag but is there to detect that it links a report.  One file with
>    such a <rep> tag is included in the diff.

I'd rather call it <report> instead of <rep> or did I miss something
and new tags must not be descriptive?

>  And it introduced a new gettext string, called "Report" (how convinient
> ;).  I had to add it to common_tags.wml for not making the
> recent_list.wml dependent on events_common.wml which would IMHO just
> reduce the throughput on other pages using recent_list.wml.
> 
>  I defined the <rep> tag only in the past_event.wml file for it doesn't
> make sense in any other.

Probably.

However, Alfie already pointed out that scanning the directory instead
of the files requires special treatment for the Makefiles to detect
a new dependency when a report is translated or written.  I'm not sure
whether this could be achieved without self-modifying Makefiles.
Umh... but I'm sure Joy will hate me if I implement that...  However,
that would be the extra fun bit of it. :-)

If you insist on the <rep> tag (or something similar, why not define
it in the header as

<define-tag report>http://lists.debian.org/debian-events-eu-0210/msg00019.html</define-tag>

> +<define-tag rep endtag=required whitespace=delete>
> +<preserve href />
> +<set-var %attributes />
> +  <a href="<get-var href />">%body</a>
> +  <restore href />
> +</define-tag>

Nitpick, but why do you indent <restore> different to <preserve>?

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
The only stupid question is the unasked one.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.