Upayavira wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
...
An "edit this page" link would make is *sooo* much better to tie the
whole system together and shouldn't be that hard.
With one of those 'don't crawl me' request parameters, I assume? And a
robots.txt on Daisy. We don't want our daisy content crawled by search
engines, do we?
why not? showing a login page to a search engine is not going to make
that big of a difference
Well, at the moment, all content in Daisy is visible to the world. I
don't like this. Were it protected in some way, I would agree with you.
It can be protected in pretty much any way you want, anyone with admin
rights on Daisy can do it.
Anyone who arrives at the wiki initially has the role of "guest". People
can self register, this makes them "user". After this rights have to be
defined and assigned by an admin.
In addition we can limit access to only live documents, i.e. published
and to particular collections. It's also possible on a per page basis
but administration of this is cumbersome, the ACL interface is not
really geared up for this.
So the question is, with respect to read access to the "live" documents
and to the "in development" docs (write access is already defined):
1) should we keep access open to all users (including guests)
2) should we allow access to users (self registration possible)
3) should we only allow access to people approved by the community
My view is that we restrict read access to published docs to "users" and
encourage people to comment on the docs rather than edit them.
The we have the existing doc-editors and doc-committers role for editing
and publishing.
Ross
Ross
