On 6/15/07, Scott Connard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and > > make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the > > core distribution, instead of being a > > recipe/configuration change as it is now. > > I vote for Site.SiteHeader. And I definitely think we need a way to > turn it off when we need to for a specific page or a specific group. > And I think that it shouldn't be tied to (:nogroupheader:). When you > use a SiteHeader for all of your groups except one group that needs a > GroupHeader without the SiteHeader, it's much nicer to have a > (:nositeheader:) rather than conditional code in the SiteHeader.
I agree with this, except maybe call it the page SitewideHeader to make it more self-evident what the page does. To me, the tricky part is coming up with a better name for (:nositeheader:) since Pm doesn't like that name (or is it the concept he's opposed to?). (:nositewideheader:) is long, but at least that name makes it pretty obvious what's intended. Having the SitewideHeader content disappear when a GroupHeader page is created would seem to violate the principle of least surprise. I'd prefer to be able to explicitly suppress it with a (:nositewideheader:) directive in the GroupHeader page. To clarify: I'm for the concept Scott suggests, not necessarily the page and directive names. The sitewide header and footer content should display unless suppressed by a directive. That keeps it simple. Hagan _______________________________________________ pmwiki-users mailing list pmwiki-users@pmichaud.com http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users