On Sep 23, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Jim Gay wrote:
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.
True, but it's developers/designers that make a decisions about using
either if_content or unless_blank, not the users.
I'm willing to concede that
this is something that people want and accommodate for it with the
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.
It depends on how strongly you want to discourage it's use.
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.
I think that it is hear that I again have to point to ruby. The
principle of "least surprise" does not mean that it is your "least
surprise", it's matz's.
In the same way intuitive for you doesn't necessarily mean intuitive
for me or others.
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
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.
Actually, it would be cool to see a list of all of the existing page
part names on the "add part" dialog. Click on a name to fill in the
the part name. Type to filter the list.
Would that solve the problem?
Radiant mailing list