On Saturday, October 01, 2011 02:52:07 PM you wrote: > On 10/1/11, V.Krishn <vkris...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, October 01, 2011 10:36:40 AM Carlos AB wrote: > >> Pehaps just using a markup for each html meta entry or one markup that > >> covers all options in one markup. > >> > >> (:facebookmeta name=??? description=??? image=??? :) > > > > Perhaps > > > > (:extrameta facebook name=??? description=??? image=??? :) > > (:extrameta googleplus name=??? description=??? image=??? :) > > OR > > (:meta facebook name=??? description=??? image=??? :) > > > > meta - directive namespace > > facebook - scope > > > > This would leave possibility for any future addition using same > > namespace(extrameta/meta) and making the tag easy to remember. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > V.Krishn > > That could work too, but the thing is that you will have to write > extra code for each scope, like a recipe for the recipe, so I believe > it is more pratical/easy to have the directive-namespace+scope to form > a single recipe, that does just one thing. > > But it is not so diffcult to do your way too. > > Regards, > > CarlosAB
It would require more code if done in class or writing seperate api's to unifiy the directive. But a simple approach would be: Having an array populated from the directives, like: $HTMLHeaderFmt['meta']['facebook'] Thus future recipes would just follow the convention of using: $HTMLHeaderFmt['meta']['googleplus'] The benefit from this would be easy query/manipulate from within future recipes which may want to check metas being pushed into the template. -- Regards. V.Krishn _______________________________________________ pmwiki-users mailing list pmwiki-users@pmichaud.com http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users