On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:43 PM, John W. Long <m...@johnwlong.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Jim Gay wrote:
>>
>> I don't like the if/unless_blank tags when we could do this with
>> if_content.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> What would everyone think about adding this, but altering the default
>> behavior so that if a page part is blank, it is considered not there.
>> So <r:if_content part="my_part" allow_blank="false"> would be your use
>> case to override and <r:if_content part="my_part"> would be the
>> default where allow_blank is assumed to be true.
>
> The original intent behind if_content was the semantic "does this part
> exist?"

That may be the case, but the name of the tag has caused confusion in
my experience. My typical users (myself included) consider content to
be text.

> It's not meant to be something that checks for whitespace. if_blank
> seems much more intention revealing (with that goal in mind). I'm not sure
> that I see the need for both a new attribute on the if_content tag and a new
> if_blank tag, so I favor just the if_blank tag.

I don't see the need for both. I'm arguing that the default behavior
for if_content be more reflective of it's name (checking for content),
but allow that behavior to be changed to fall in line with it's
historical behavior (checking for a page part).

Adding an attribute adds some complexity, but adding a new tag
certainly adds more. And my expectation would be that the use of the
attribute would be rare.

When I look at the names of them, my intuition would tell me that:
if_content == unless_blank
unless_content == if_blank

But that's not at all how they would behave according to this discussion.
_______________________________________________
Radiant mailing list
Post:   Radiant@radiantcms.org
Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/
Site:   http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant

Reply via email to