On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 11:06:45AM -0500, Jon Haupt wrote: > On 6/15/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:22:54AM +1000, Kathryn Andersen wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:32:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > > > > For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and > > > > make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the > > > > core distribution, instead of being a recipe/configuration > > > > change as it is now. > > > > > > Is this header always included in all groups, or is it a fallback if > > > the Group.GroupHeader doesn't exist? > > > > Included in all groups. > > Okay, now you've got me confused. > > I thought that it worked the other way? I think the recipe works as a > fallback. In other words, where there is no Group.GroupHeader, > Site.AllGroupHeader is used as the group header. Such that, > (:nogroupheader:) simply removes whichever one would have been included.
The recipe (http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/AllGroupHeader) provides both options, but the first option mentioned in the recipe provides both Site.AllGroupHeader *and* Group.GroupHeader. So, perhaps we should implement it using the fallback interpretation instead. Then someone that wants to have both Site.AllGroupHeader and Group.GroupHeader included would use (:include Site.AllGroupHeader:) in the Group.GroupHeader. > If it's not going to work that way, and it's going to be added independent > from Group.GroupHeader, then I strongly suggest also having > Site.SiteHeader instead and adding (:nositeheader:). For some reason I'm not a big fan of (:nositeheader:). Pm _______________________________________________ pmwiki-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
