On 30 May 2012 20:41, Paul Sharples <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30/05/2012 19:18, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote: > >> On 30 May 2012 19:11, Paul >> Sharples<[email protected].**uk<[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> On 30/05/2012 16:52, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote: >>> >>> On 30 May 2012 17:44, Paul Sharples<[email protected].****uk< >>>> [email protected]>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 30/05/2012 16:08, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: >>>> >>>>> Content preview:> >>>>> >>>>>> Content analysis details: (-10.0 points, 5.0 required) >>>>>> >>>>>> pts rule name description >>>>>> ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------****** >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------- >>>>>> -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at >>>>>> http://www.dnswl.org/, >>>>>> high >>>>>> trust >>>>>> [140.211.11.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] >>>>>> -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover >>>>>> relay >>>>>> >>>>>> domain >>>>>> -3.0 RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED RBL: Sender is in Return Path Certified >>>>>> (trusted >>>>>> relay) >>>>>> [Return Path SenderScore Certified >>>>>> (formerly] >>>>>> [Bonded Sender) -<http://www.** >>>>>> senderscorecertified.com<http:****//www.senderscorecertified.**com<http://www.senderscorecertified.com> >>>>>> <http://www.**senderscorecertified.com<http://www.senderscorecertified.com> >>>>>> > >>>>>> **>>] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -2.0 RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE RBL: Sender is in Return Path Safe >>>>>> (trusted >>>>>> relay) >>>>>> [Return Path SenderScore Safe List >>>>>> (formerly] >>>>>> [Habeas Safelist) -<http://www.** >>>>>> senderscorecertified.com<http:****//www.senderscorecertified.**com<http://www.senderscorecertified.com> >>>>>> <http://www.**senderscorecertified.com<http://www.senderscorecertified.com> >>>>>> > >>>>>> **>>] >>>>>> Return-Path: dev-return-5463-P.Sharples=****bol** >>>>>> [email protected]**<bo**[email protected]<[email protected]> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2012 15:09:06.0689 (UTC) >>>>>> FILETIME=[284E3710:01CD3E76] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jasha >>>>>>> Joachimsthal >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:26 AM >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Team Pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 30 May 2012 16:10, Sean Cooper<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is anyone currently working on team pages, or working on defining a >>>>>>> >>>>>>> structure for it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to take a crack at defining it this week, but I don't want >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> interrupt anyone that might already be working on the problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Sean >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am planning to work on it, but it's not clear yet when. So if you >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> want to >>>>>>> start, go ahead :) What I need is a concept of a page that is shared >>>>>>> with a >>>>>>> group of users, but the users cannot edit the page, only the >>>>>>> administrator >>>>>>> of the page. See also [1] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please add to the proposal http://wiki.apache.org/rave/** >>>>>>> >>>>>> ArchitectureTopics/PageModel<**h**ttp://wiki.apache.org/rave/****<http://wiki.apache.org/rave/**> >>>>>> >>>>>> ArchitectureTopics/PageModel<h**ttp://wiki.apache.org/rave/** >>>>>> ArchitectureTopics/PageModel<http://wiki.apache.org/rave/ArchitectureTopics/PageModel> >>>>>> > >>>>>> I've got some changes&improvements I've made to the page sharing >>>>>> >>>>> facility >>>>> >>>>> (RAVE-103), which probably are relevant to this discussion. >>>>> (not team pages yet, but the ability to make shared pages non-editable, >>>>> for instance) >>>>> Is it okay to commit this or are we too near the next build (i.e. is >>>>> there >>>>> a code freeze yet?) >>>>> >>>>> There's no code freeze yet, but if you break something now, you have >>>>> >>>> less >>>> than 24 hours to fix it ;) >>>> Luckily some of the basic features are now covered by the integration >>>> tests: >>>> http://rave.apache.org/****integration-tests.html<http://rave.apache.org/**integration-tests.html> >>>> <http://**rave.apache.org/integration-**tests.html<http://rave.apache.org/integration-tests.html> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Thanks Jasha, I've just comitted the changes. I'd be grateful if >>> some of >>> the other commiters could take a look. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> Good improvements! Without permission to edit the shared page users >> don't >> get the false hope to move or add widgets. I even tried to mess with the >> widget store url and the referring page id, but then you still cannot add >> widgets :) >> >> In the share page dialog: >> Shouldn't the "Edit preferences" option be disabled for users that don't >> have edit permission? IMO it would be even better to remove the disabled >> options than to show them greyed out. >> > > Just looking at the other menus, (the page menu for example) actions I > can't take as a user tend to be greyed out so I took the cue from that UI > pattern. (unless I have missed something :-) ) Its easy enough to change I > guess. >
Yes you were consistent here :) Maybe some other time we can decide about this. > > The reason I didn't grey out the "Edit preferences" was so that you can > change something in your session, but it will not be persisted and so will > revert back to the perisisted state when you log in again. This is similar > to how the minimize/maximize widget now works for a non editing user. This > was an assumption and could be completely locked down instead. Fair enough > > > The label "Edit permission" is a bit confusing (what permission can this >> person edit?). Maybe "Permission to edit" or "Can edit page" are less >> confusing. It is easy to change the add/remove links into checkboxes? >> > > Fair comment & easy enough to change > > >> >> Jasha >>>> >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://markmail.org/thread/******5dfecb5gk7qynqdc<http://markmail.org/thread/****5dfecb5gk7qynqdc> >>>>> <http://**markmail.org/thread/****5dfecb5gk7qynqdc<http://markmail.org/thread/**5dfecb5gk7qynqdc> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> <http://**markmail.org/thread/****5dfecb5gk7qynqdc<http://markmail.org/thread/**5dfecb5gk7qynqdc> >>>>>> <http://**markmail.org/thread/**5dfecb5gk7qynqdc<http://markmail.org/thread/5dfecb5gk7qynqdc> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> Jasha >>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> >>>>>> No virus found in this message. >>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>>>> Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2425/5029 - Release Date: >>>>>> 05/28/12 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2425/5029 - Release Date: >>>> 05/28/12 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2425/5029 - Release Date: 05/28/12 >> > >
