So, Lance had some good thoughts about how the decorator works, but nobody else has chimed in on the idea of standardizing the 4 main templates.
Basically they would work the same way they do today, except that they would be (1) required and (2) not renamable. -- Allen On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 10:40, Allen Gilliland wrote: > one of the things i've been considering more and more over the last couple > months is the idea of standardizing the page templates which are essential to > each weblog. i think it would be very beneficial if we made some page > templates (Weblog, _day, _css, _decorator) be (1) required and (2) not > renamable. > > I've been building a list of why I think this would help ... > > 1. The ability to rename these templates is seldom used and hardly beneficial > to users. The names of these templates shouldn't ever need to be visible > outside of the editing interface anyways. > > 2. Doing this would give us a bit more control on the UI. We could add > smarter messaging and control measures when someone is working on a required > template versus a custom template. Special messaging for users editing the > Weblog template could be very helpful. > > 3. This could help us a bit with caching. Right now we all pages are > considered equal because we can't really identify them. By standardizing the > most common page templates we could use that info to do some potentially > smarter caching, like caching individual weblog entries rather than just > fully rendered pages. > > All in all I think this would be a good thing. > > I also had a side thought about the decorator template. Currently I am still > not a fan of the decorator template mainly because it either has to be > applied to all page templates or none of them. This seems inconvenient to > me. I think it would be preferable if you could apply the decorator to only > selected page templates. This would allow users the convenience of using the > decorator without requiring that it be used for *all* templates. > > I think the best example in this case is a css page template. I would > consider using the decorator template, except that I have a css template as > well and if I use the decorator then my css template won't work. > > thoughts? comments? > > -- Allen > >
