Hi, On 08/10/2015 06:23 PM, Gergo Tisza wrote: > tl;dr should OAuth [1] (the system by which external tools can register to > be "Wikimedia applications" and users can grant them the right to act in > their name) rely on community-maintained description pages or profile forms > filled by application authors?
Wiki pages please :) > > --------------- > > Some of the benefits and drawbacks of using wiki pages: > * they require very little development; > * it's a workflow we have a lot of experience with, and have high-quality > tools to support it (templates, editing tools, automated updates etc.); > * the information schema can be extended without the need to update > software / change DB schemas; > * easier to open up editing to anyone since there are mature change > tracking / anti-abuse tools in MediaWiki (but even so, open editing would > be somewhat scary - some fields might have legal strings attached or become > attack vectors); I assume these wiki pages would be some kind of structured ContentHandler pages? We could restrict editing those fields to the application owners then? > * limited access control (MediaWiki namespace pages could be used, as they > are e.g. for gadgets, to limit editing of certain information to admins, > but something like "owner can edit own application + OAuth admins can edit > all aplications" is not possible); If it goes in a separate namespace, you can > * hard to access from the software in a structured way - one could rely on > naming conventions (e.g. the icon is always at File:OAuth-<application > name>-icon.png) or use Wikidata somehow, but both of those sound awkward; If the data is stored in a structured format, it should be easy to access. > * design/usability/interface options are limited. In what way? ContentHandler lets you override and customize pretty much everything... -- Legoktm _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
