Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 21.04.2010, 12:57 Uhr, schrieb Charlie Clark
> <charlie.cl...@clark-consulting.eu>:
>> Additionally I'd like to rename the view folder/@@edit.html to
>> folder/@@contents.html. I kept the view name to match the PythonScript
>> but
>> I think it is both misleading - you cannot "edit" the folder with this
>> view and it causes problems with classes derived from PortalFolder which
>> are contentish (a not unusual or unreasonable thing but which currently
>> forces a new name for an edit view or some hacking to have a dedicated
>> contents view). Apart from updating the profiles and, presumably, an
>> upgrade step I don't see any side-effects.
> aagh! wrong again!
> edit ->  @@properties.html, folder_contents ->  @@edit.html

I agree this is confusing. I think this would be better:

object/metadata -> @@properties.html, object/edit -> @@edit.html
and folder/folderContents -> @@edit.html of the parent

> Gets me every time! I can just about live with "edit" referring to the
> metadata view although this is different from all other content objects
> but I'd prefer folders not to have edit views unless dedicated ones exist.
> Do we need an edit view to conform with actions/object?

Well. 'folder_contents' *is* an edit view. If you add, move or delete 
subobjects you *edit* the folder. Because besides metadata this is the 
only thing you edit in plain folders, I chose this generic name for that 

This is about dividing editing into different pages. You can edit 
properties, subobjects and other content on the same page or on 
different pages.

I personally use just "object/edit -> @@edit.html" and a modified 
@@edit.html that allows to edit Title and Description as well.


Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to