Hi all, > This discussion is losing sight of an important point. We have a > unique opportunity with 3.0 to do whatever we want. After all, admins > will need to import all of their pages from 2.x into 3.0. When that > happens, we can do any normalization that is needed.
very good point, exactly my opinion, too. > So, I'd urge us to think carefully about this issue. I don't want > "fuzzy logic" because too often that means fuzzy thinking. We should > strive for the simplest page-resolution algorithm we can design, with > the fewest special cases. The current 3.0 scheme is too complex. It may be complex, but I'd like to have it clearly defined by some grammatical rules (like BNF), not only by some existing code, which in some cases presumably doesn't do what it's expected to. > (3) When the page repository is migrated, on import, "clashing" links > would be modified so that they do not conflict. So if two pages called > "A test" and "atest" existed, the second one would be renamed to > "atest_2" (as would all its references). I think this is a good way to go. Additionally, these conflicts should be logged, so the admin(s) can take care of each and eventually find a better solution. Regards Florian
