On Sep 23, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Jim Gay wrote:
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. . . . I'm arguing that the default behavior for if_content
be more reflective of it's name (checking for content)

You've definitely given me pause to think here Jim. Your argument about the name of the tag does carry weight. And I could almost go either way. Here are my thoughts:

1. Preserving the current behavior serves existing users because we don't introduce a backwards incompatible change. Granted we could write migrations that would add the appropriate attribute to all if_content tags, but is that really what people will prefer?

2. if_blank allows for the same behavior, and is almost as intuitive

3. I would like encourage the use of if_content because it doesn't encourage people to add a bunch of blank objects to the system

John Long

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