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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ > Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant > _______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: [email protected] Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
