I prefer trusting `if_content` to just tell me if the part is actually
present on the page,
especially when using page parts that do more than just output text (granted,
using non-text page parts probably
isn't a common use-case, but it might become more common after the
Page Parts is
polished up for release). I think `if_blank` is simple enough to continue
using as is. At one point I had the same problem, and created a
`if_has_content` tag which checked for both the page part and .content
returned anything. How about creating a more semantic one for that use case
and leaving the original two tags as is?
As to the if_url changes, I agree that it should return the full URL. I
usually just use `if_url matches="/some-slug"`, but being able to test for
parameters could also be useful.

-Alex

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:09 PM, John W. Long <m...@johnwlong.com> wrote:

> 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
> http://wiseheartdesign.com
> http://recursivecreative.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Radiant mailing list
> Post:   Radiant@radiantcms.org
> Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/
> Site:   http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
>
_______________________________________________
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