Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Trevor Parscal
<tparscal(a)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)