On 4/3/07, Hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tuesday, April 3, 2007, 4:54:13 PM, Patrick wrote:
>
> > Well, I don't know about "in a template". My intent has always
> > been that {(...)} would be rendering markup, not something
> > substituted in a template.
>
> Okay. Then I need more clarification. I am confused.
> Fox has used date stamping markup like {date:d.m.Y - H:i} up till now.
> I changed that today to {(date:....)}.
> This is used in templates, and Fox uses the date function to
> substitute the template placeholder for a hard string, i.e.
> something like 03.04.2007 - 17:01, to be put into the target page.
>
> Will the {(date )} markup you propose interfere with this?
>
> >From your answer above it seems to me that Fox will need to continue
> to replace a {(date ...} pattern for timestamping posts. This is okay
> as long as there is no collusion of markups. So the date: may be
> rather helpful to retain. Or am I missing something?
>
> I suppose I could use a general date markup and pass its value to Fox
> via a POST field. But using the special replacement pattern for
> {(date:..)} and {(strftime: ..)} avoids an extra input field to catch
> the value of a date markup.
For what it's worth, this is how ZAP works. {( )} is always rendered
markup, and it's transferred to the template via an input value. ZAP
doesn't do any other processing of the template except field
insertions.
Cheers,
Dan
_______________________________________________
pmwiki-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
