Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
Superb! Nice one Els. Totally cool.
So, greenery abound, now it’s time for me to start going through for a 2nd pass and:
- add the bamtag / fix the syntax line where I screwed up
- remove
<code>and any extraneous markup from the attribute names - tighten the copy — primarily the example titles (if required) — and check that it makes some kind of sense!
- check the atts / defaults match the actual code
- fix up the attribute options into value / default / description if that’s the way we’re going. Any more thoughts on the lower third of my post regarding how to make large numbers of potential Values easily accessible (check the page_url tag for one suggestion, though by no means the only way). Also, is the CSS2.1 selector idea likely to make an appearance because that impacts whether we add the words ‘Value’, ‘Default’ etc to the markup?
And any further thoughts on the best approach for the attrib cross-reference?
I will probably have a go at bringing the forthcoming tags into line with the above changes. But what is the best way of keeping each tag in its own area (away from the current live tags) but making it a simple job to copy and paste over when the new version goes live? I guess we can’t add {{category:…}} definitions to the bottom or they’ll show up in the existing tag subcats… right? Wrong?
The smd plugin menagerie — for when you need one more gribble of power from Textpattern. Bleeding-edge code available on GitHub.
Txp Builders – finely-crafted code, design and Txp
Offline
#86 2008-10-23 15:34:51
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
Destry wrote:
Hmmm…that gives me a fun idea, combined with this.
:) Well, it looks like being given the opportunity to add {{green checkoff}}s was enough motivation for me ;) But an extension like that might very well help to attract more contributors…
I’ve also added the tag changes in 4.0.6, since that apparently had not been done yet.
Bloke wrote:
I guess we can’t add {{category:…}} definitions to the bottom or they’ll show up in the existing tag subcats… right? Wrong?
If it’s possible to set a category to ‘hidden’ or something like that, and we only would have to change the category/ies when 4.0.7 is released, this would be an ideal solution.
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
Your work on the cross-reference looks fine to me bloke, but I’m far from being the one to comment on the accuracy of the attributes.
Bloke wrote, from earlier in this thread:
In the absence of some clever wiki widget to automate this page…
Outside of clever wiki templates which I already proposed and you compared with looping VBA or something another, I don’t think there’s much we can do here in terms of clever wiki automation. :/
For starters, is it possible to add some simple auto-generated alphabetic jump-nav at the top? And perhaps some back-to-the-top style links after each attribute so the behemoth amount of scrolling is lessened?
Hmmm, what happened to all the in page TOC? That’s weird. I’ll have to look into that. That would solve the top-down direction. We might be able to do something ugly for the links up.
It was my impression from another thread (and input from others) that the cross-ref page is not often used by anyone. People generally just make use of the attributes info on a given tag page. I’m not trying to make a point here (for a change), just bringing that fact forward again. :)
Bloke wrote, more recently:
But what is the best way of keeping each tag in its own area (away from the current live tags) but making it a simple job to copy and paste over when the new version goes live? I guess we can’t add {{category:…}} definitions to the bottom or they’ll show up in the existing tag subcats… right? Wrong?
If they are not supposed to be in the Tag Reference proper, then they should not be in any of the categories that are composed of the Tag Reference, especially category:Tag Reference. Thus, we need a new category like category:Future Tags. When a given future tag is promoted, then the category links in that page need updated accordingly. The only real advantage here, which is worthwhile, is that future tags are easily found, either by going to special:Categories or/and we add a link in the Tags ref index list template so it’s easily found by authors who work on future tag pages.
Note: For categories you always use straight brackets ([[category:..]]), never curly brackets ({{...}}), which are for templates only.
Last edited by Destry (2008-10-23 21:35:47)
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
Destry wrote:
the cross-ref page is not often used by anyone.
True, I’d forgotten about that. In that case, as it’s a ‘use once to check an attribute and leave the page’ affair, there’s no need for inter-page navigation. Forget I mentioned it :-)
Thus, we need a new category like category:Future Tags.
Yes I like the way that’s set up now, nice one. As you say, a link from the category list to the ones in development is all that’s required; the two can then be kept separate until release time whereby the category nav at the bottom is updated and it automatically moves from one place to the other. Very cool.
Note: For categories you always use straight brackets (
[[category:..]])
D’oh, that was me and a brain-ejecting typo moment.
The smd plugin menagerie — for when you need one more gribble of power from Textpattern. Bleeding-edge code available on GitHub.
Txp Builders – finely-crafted code, design and Txp
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
Bloke wrote:
In that case, as it’s a ‘use once to check an attribute and leave the page’ affair, there’s no need for inter-page navigation. Forget I mentioned it :-)
I think it’s still a good idea to make the page as usable as possible, as you were suggesting, so long as it’s sticking around. I guess I did have a point after all for mentioning the historical discussion on that page, which is to re-kick the issue of whether that page is really needed or not; not only under the light it’s rarely used, but also under the light it’s a manually maintained affair and who’s responsible for it? (I know who used to be responsible for it, but they don’t seem to be taking much interest in the recent efforts to improve the TR. Of course there’s a lot of dust settling yet, but still.)
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
OK, so tag pages representing tags in development have been put in their own category called category:Future Tags so they are easily found but yet separate from the principle reference.
That begs the question of what to do with this old Tags in Development page. I think under the new categorization model, that page is not effective, because it lists both current and development tags, which is somewhat confusing. It seems to me if there’s modifications to be made to current tags (and those mods actually do get made by the next releases) then you simply update the principle tag pages with the relevant details when the time comes — a separate affair from the new tags. Thus, I think that page should be removed and we settle comfortably into using the categories to keep things separate and navigable.
Alternatively, we could copy the content of that page into the discussion side of category:Future Tags (i.e., category_talk:FutureTags) so it’s directly in context to the tags in dev side of things but not a forward facing page that might be confusing under the categories model.
Feelings?
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
Els wrote:
… an extension like that might very well help to attract more contributors…
Unfortunately, that extension does not work with new MW. Not surprising since it was last updated a year ago. Would have been interesting though.
Side:
Page TOC’s are back in action, except main (Index) page which is removed by desire.
Offline
#92 2008-10-24 15:49:14
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
Trying to post a Textile link to an anchor on a Tag Reference page, I found that when the heading (and therefore the anchor name) ends with a full stop (.), the link does not go the anchor. Obviously this is a Textile issue, but is it nevertheless worth while to take into account when creating headings?
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
(I’m not stalking you, honest :-)
Els wrote:
when the heading (and therefore the anchor name) ends with a full stop (
.), the link does not go the anchor.
That’s a good point, well found. As it happens (purely luck than judgement) I’ve been removing full stops in headings when I see them. Phew.
Guess when we’ve all gone through and tidied the headings up to be a lot shorter (that one you posted there is a true monster!) it should go away for the existing tags and we can textile to our hearts’ content.
Last edited by Bloke (2008-10-24 15:54:48)
The smd plugin menagerie — for when you need one more gribble of power from Textpattern. Bleeding-edge code available on GitHub.
Txp Builders – finely-crafted code, design and Txp
Offline
#94 2008-10-24 16:03:19
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
Bloke wrote:
(I’m not stalking you, honest :-)
I don’t mind, as long as you keep agreeing with every post I make ;)
As it happens (purely luck than judgement) I’ve been removing full stops in headings when I see them. Phew.
Yes, I’ve been doing that as well, but not very consistently as it appears. Ah well, one more reason to tidy up :)
Last edited by els (2008-10-24 16:03:55)
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
It is generally bad form to use ending punctuation in titles and headers, with the exception of a question mark. The periods exist because the headers were used like descriptions, which is unconventional to say the least, but makes for difficult reading/scanning too.
I may not have got the details right, but here’s a change towards the right direction, if_article_list. Each example now has an easy to scan header and a more descriptive explanation (under the header). And note how much better these headers work in the TOC.
By the way, you both rock, and the community should be giving you high fives for the dedication and level of detail you’re putting into it. Great work!
Offline
#96 2008-10-24 21:28:06
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Tags Reference
Destry wrote:
By the way, you both rock, and the community should be giving you high fives for the dedication and level of detail you’re putting into it. Great work!
Who needs a Social Rewarding extension when we have Destry :) Thanks for your kind words!
Your if_article_list page looks much cleaner now! I’ll try and put some time into the other pages this weekend.
Offline