On Sep 23, 2009, at 5:33 PM, Jim Gay wrote:
So how will Radiant (or John Long) be discouraging its use? Would the
documentation in the tag reference say that?

I don't think there is a need to document this in the tag reference. It will be somewhat discouraged by having if_content and unless_blank instead of having the default behavior of if_content be to not render blank content.

Couldn't you argue that we should keep the behavior of if_url based on that?

I suppose you could argue that, but it's somewhat different in this case. This is about intent. The if_url change is about being more consistent with Rails.

I'd rather not need to do <r:if_content
part="my_part"><r:unless_blank>... all the time just to allow users to
keep their easy-to-understand-and-remember places to put text.

You won't. You'll do:

<r:unless_blank part="sidebar"><r:content part="sidebar" /></ r:unless_blank>

There is no need to use both conditionals.

True; I'm making that same point. Although if_content is intuitive to
you, it is not intuitive to me and to some of my users.
Your opinion is obvious that page parts are content, but I don't agree
(and I don't think the Radiant interface encourages that idea). I have
experienced questions from people using if_content where they expected
"content" in the if_content tag to mean text. Changing the interface,
could possibly solve that discrepancy between our

I'm definitely up for changes that help make the intent clearer.

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?

Yes, if it stored names of parts that used to exist. Suppose there is
one page that has a "widget_x" part. A user may delete it and try to
recreate it later and they would either need to recall that it is not
"WidgetX" or some other variation, or the list of parts would need to
contain "widget_x" even though it may not exist anymore on any page.

What about a radiant config setting for standard part names? Perhaps it is default page parts that should go away.

My initial thought was that it would be just for the current page, but
then it would be a pain to find part names of parent pages, so a
site-wide list would be much better.


I envision your suggestion like the 'suggest a friend' interface on facebook.

Something like that.

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