https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46440
--- Comment #34 from Tyler Romeo <[email protected]> --- From Matt's email: > The high-level concept of RevisionDelete applies, but I don't think > directly using it is a good fit. What happens if one comment on a page > is a violation, but the next consecutive 999 are fine? With RevDel, I > think you'd have to remove the bad one, then suppress all 1000 (correct > me if I'm wrong) containing the bad one, leaving no history of how the > good 999 developed. I was thinking one page per comment. > True, but there's existing code (the main one I'm thinking of is AFTv5) > to learn from. Another reason not to use a page is that it constrains > changes. Once we publish the JSON page, there could be bots that rely > on it, rather than the API. If we just use JSON internally, that gives > us flexibility. If we use pages, we could still use JSON only internally. We'd implement a new Content type for annotations and still provide an API module for accessing comments. All that said, I understand the concern with using articles as a storage medium, so I would be fine with either way. I just wanted to make sure we weren't ditching the idea without due consideration. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
