[pmwiki-users] Is 'Page Creator' worth to discuss?

marc gmane at auxbuss.com
Fri Feb 22 04:48:57 CST 2008

Hans said...
> Thursday, February 21, 2008, 6:46:40 PM, David Spitzley wrote:
> > Based on some earlier discussions of extending pmwiki's
> > functionality, it would probably be helpful if you were to define
> > what you think an official "page creator" role should entail.
> 'page creator' is not a role like admin or edit, but simply logging
> the original author of a page as  a page attribute, similar as it is
> done with the original page creation date/time. And providing a page
> variable to retrieve this value. for implementation this needs a small
> change in  the pmwiki.php file. So if we want such a record in the
> page's attributes, we need to convince Pm of its virtues.
> I think it is a good idea and would augment the existing 'ctime'
> page attribute $page['ctime'].
> I suggest to call it $page['cauthor'], derived from creation author.

My view on this is that it should not be part of PmWiki's core, but a 
recipe for those that really need it - although I think they should 
fight it long and hard.

As an aside, the original author can always be derived from action=diff. 
In this case, at least it's in context to the changes that follow. And 
if you use expirediff, as I do, I would argue that you are not 
interested in a page's history - at least, beyond some point.

To my way of thinking, page ownership should be kept to the bare 
minimum. The idea that x remains the "creator" of a page is anathema, 
and counter to wiki philosophy of 'freedom to edit'.

What happens when a page creator is no longer around and "ownership" 
transfers to y? Ah, we create a recipe to edit 'cauthor'. But then 
'cauthor' is no longer 'cauthor' but 'owner'. At that point, imo, the 
wiki is broken.

No, I don't believe that this should be part of the core at all.


More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list