On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:00 PM, John W. Long <[email protected]> wrote: > Basically, encouraging users to have "blank" page parts is not something > that I want to encourage. They should delete the object to keep the database > clean if this is something that they desire.
Users don't care about keeping the database clean. Developers might care, but regular content editors just want to know where to put their content. And the problem with deleting a page part is that the user needs to remember what it was called to successfully recreate it and have it appear in the layout. > I'm willing to concede that > this is something that people want and accommodate for it with the if_blank > tag, but I would personally discourage it's usage. I think that an appropriate way to discourage the use of if_blank is to insist that it be in an extension. It's default presence in the list of Available Tags is encouragement of its use, in my opinion. >> I think it's acceptable, although less desirable, to maintain the >> current behavior and have only one tag for this purpose. > > I think this is where our basic disagreement is. Maybe. It's not the addition of a tag or attribute that I'm after, it's the purposeful, intuitive naming of tags and the correction of ones that aren't quite right: if_url and if_content being examples. What about recording the previous existence of page parts for each page? So that after you delete a part, a link/button becomes available to re-add that part (blank). That, to me, would solve the problem where users would not be required to recall the exact name (related-links, related_links, RelatedLinks, what was it?) and would better connect the idea that content is an actual page part, and not the text. -- Jim Gay http://www.saturnflyer.com _______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: [email protected] Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
