Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@wikimedia.org wrote:
Since the features of the extension are disabled for unregistered users already
Is this a design decision, or just to simplify implementation? You could use a cookie or something, but if you did that you'd have to make sure Squid doesn't serve pages differently because of it.
I don't think it would be wise to add that for anonymous users. People could be seeing drafts from other people and we would be unable to assist or even verify reports of things that people see that their coworkers are writing.
They could benefit from drafts, but in that case better to do it on the browser itself. IMHO we still need some kind of saving into firefox storage, for cases like a read-only db. Instead of 'You can't save, the site is read-only'->'Save-draft'->'No, you can't, the db is read-only', 'You can't save, the site is read-only'->'Save-draft'->'The site is read-only, the draft has been saved into your browser'.
A completely different approach could be to allow anyone to view other's drafts. As a new feature, it could be accepted as it is, without treating it as a completely privacy section. Normal wikipedians won't mind of people seeing the article as they're writing in. However, the auto-save-draft may conflict with it.
BTW, the discard link should go via $wgScriptPath not $wgArticlePath Doing this could lead to eg. search ngines following those links (although not likely to cause problems for *this* extension)