On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:57 PM, alinome.net <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ok, I'm thinking out loud again. Here's my list for candidates for 3.xx >> Feedback welcome... > > I dare to suggest a change: recently you added skin dependent > templates. I bet I'm the only one who uses this feateure I > suggested :) > > Well, your solution was to check "template.templatename.skinname" > before "template.templatename". > > I realized two issues: > > 1) it makes much harder to create a hierchical TOC of templates in the > "template" page (i facr I didn't achieved it yet). I like to have TOCs > in "contentless" root pages like code, code.skin, code style, > template... > > 2) If you add hierarchical templates in the future, they wouldn't be > coherent with zones: "template.templatename.skinname" vs > "zone.skinname.pagename". > > That's why I suggest to change the check to > "template.skinname.templatename".
Actually, I think we're just getting too complicated. Maybe we should think more about putting hooks in to custom certain sections of the code rather than creating every option in the core. Because we already have the skin/style order pretty well set, I was trying to make sure new features match what we already have. So I was thinking along that line... But I see your point about the CSV. It would help in zipping up skins if we could make listing them easier. Thinking out loud... Currently we have the following: * code.skin, code.skin.skinname, and code.hierarchy.skin. ** We do not have code.hierarchy.skin.skinname. Same for styles. * template.templatename, and template.templatename.skinname. We ** We do not have template.hierarchy.templatename, or template.hierarchy.templatename.skinname * zones like side go hierarchy.side and zones.skinname,hierarchy.side (I think). It seems there is some inconsistency with the zones approach... Maybe that's why it didn't quite jive with me right. Notice code.hierarchy.skin.skinname.hierarchy template.hierarchy.templatename.skinname zones.skinname.hierarchy.side Of course the first two don't exist yet, but they are extrapolations of the options we do have. And nothing fits. To be honest, I'm inclined to just do this: *code.skin, code.skinname.skin (same with style) *template.templatename, template.skinname.templatename *hierarchy.side, zones.skinname.hierarchy.side To get all your skin files just do group=code.skinname*,template.skinname*,zones.skinname In addition to the benefit of easier listing and simplified coding. We'd lose hierarchical skins, but could always do advanced things like that via a config file. For any other options we could put a couple hooks at key points in the code to allow full flexibility. Just thinking out loud. What do you think? Cheers, Dan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BoltWire" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
