On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Paul Sharples <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30/05/2012 19:18, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote: >> >> On 30 May 2012 19:11, Paul Sharples<[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> >>>>>> **>>] >>>>>> >>>>>> -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> >>>>>> **>>] >>>>>> Return-Path: dev-return-5463-P.Sharples=**bol** >>>>>> [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/** >>>>>> >>>>>> 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> >>>> >>> 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. > > 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. > > >> 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 >
My vote would be to disable all menus unless you are the owner/editor. It doesn't make sense to allow someone with read-only access to perform any actions on the page or the gadgets themselves. i.e. If I have read-only access to the page I shouldn't be able to edit the preferences or even maximize the gadget. > >> >> >>>> Jasha >>>> >>>> >>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> 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 > >
