[wiki] Tags Reference

els · 2008-10-19 00:41:04

Destry wrote:

I’ll need an email address before I can create you an account.

You’ve got mail :)

Destry · 2008-10-19 00:51:07

You’ve got account! :)

els · 2008-10-19 00:53:35

Thank you :)

els · 2008-10-19 16:31:24

Er… don’t we need something like category:Link tags (or Links tags)?

els · 2008-10-19 17:42:24

Bloke wrote:

if I’ve made any boo-boos in layout/structure, please let me know so I don’t do it again.

Same for me please :)

Bloke · 2008-10-19 18:41:45

Hi Els, I see you’ve been busy in the link section! Excellent stuff, welcome to the world of wiki authorship.

Could you tick off the tags you’ve done please? Ta.

Els wrote:

Er… don’t we need something like category:Link tags (or Links tags)?

Yes, stumped me for a while that. This is how I approached it:

In my tag that required a new category, I made a link to it like: [[category:Blah Tags]]
When viewing the tag page it then had a link to an un-made (red linked) category. If I clicked it…
… it took me to a new empty page. In another tab I opened any existing category from the list and hit Edit
Copied and pasted the code from that category into my empty one, edited the two titles to match the name of the new category and hit save. Job done.

Not sure if that’s the most efficient way to do it, but it seemed to work so I stuck with it :-)

Regarding boo-boos, it looks all ok to my untrained eye. As a matter of style I’ve been taking out any reference to “the tag’s context is [Page|Form|Column|Whatever]” because it’s a pretty meaningless statement. But that’s just me. If I noted that the tag can only be used in a particular place, I changed the kludgy ‘context’ wording into plain English instead. But mostly I removed it :-D

I’ll get stuck back in hopefully sometime tomorrow so at least between the three of us the tags are getting towards ship-shape condition which allows translators to work with clean copy. Woohooo…

els · 2008-10-19 19:22:40

Bloke wrote:

Could you tick off the tags you’ve done please? Ta.

I hadn’t done that because I wasn’t sure they are really ‘done’. But I will now.

This is how I approached it:

OK, but do you agree on a category:Links Tags? and should it be Link Tags or Links Tags?

As a matter of style I’ve been taking out any reference to “the tag’s context is [Page|Form|Column|Whatever]” because it’s a pretty meaningless statement.

Then I will do that as well.

I’m trying to figure out what is the best way to discuss formatting matters. Through the wiki? (haven’t found how to do that yet) Here? I’m not sure about Destry’s intentions regarding the code formatting.

els · 2008-10-19 19:34:38

Bloke wrote:

As a matter of style I’ve been taking out any reference to “the tag’s context is [Page|Form|Column|Whatever]” because it’s a pretty meaningless statement. But that’s just me. If I noted that the tag can only be used in a particular place, I changed the kludgy ‘context’ wording into plain English instead. But mostly I removed it :-D

Now that I think about this, lots of tags can only be used in a certain form type (like Links tags in a link form). Article tags should be used in an article form, or on the page in if_individual_article tags. All this will change in 4.0.7. Is it worth while to still add/keep this info, when we will probably have to remove it again, er… ‘soon’?

Bloke · 2008-10-20 08:24:47

Els wrote:

but do you agree on a category:Links Tags? and should it be Link Tags or Links Tags?

Yes, as you’ve done, Link Tags. I think Destry promoted a category for each of the 4 main types (Article Tags, Image Tags, Link Tags, File Tags) and then we add others as necessary.

Me: I’ve been taking out any reference to “the tag’s context is [Page|Form|Column|Whatever]” because it’s a pretty meaningless statement….
Els: Now that I think about this, lots of tags can only be used in a certain form type (like Links tags in a link form)

Yes, I’d not considered that. Thinking about it again in light of your comments I wonder if removing it was the right idea (D’oh). You’re right in that certain tags should only be used in certain contexts and perhaps that is worth a mention, though possibly in a neater way. The thing I never understood was what a “Column” context was(!?) so I just removed stuff that mentioned it.

I didn’t know that link tags were restricted to a form of type ‘link’, and so on. For some reason I thought the tags could be used anywhere (even in pages or other types of form, as long as they were within a suitable conditional/container) and that the ‘types’ were just convenience buckets for us to put our things in for admin-side organisational purposes.

If the form types really do force tag use then I agree the statements about where such tags can be used needs to be put back in. But on the other hand if, like you say, this restriction is lifted in 4.0.7 and it could be a very short-lived bit of documentation, perhaps we can get away without mentioning it :-)

I’m trying to figure out what is the best way to discuss formatting matters. Through the wiki? (haven’t found how to do that yet) Here? I’m not sure about Destry’s intentions regarding the code formatting….

Yes I wasn’t sure of that either. ISTR that Destry favoured removing the ‘forumy’ parts of the wiki so my guess is that such formatting should be discussed here under the Textbook category?

Either way, that tag list is looking mighty green now. Awesome Els, you’re on fire!

Destry · 2008-10-20 09:09:02

Speaking for myself, I’m relying on the experts to decide how tag pages should be subcategorized (grouped by context/use/location). Remember too that we can make use of the mininav lists to solve some kind of grouping aim if categories are not doing it alone. Let me know what you’re thinking and I might be able to suggest how to structure it. The mininav is most effective for really providing strong contextual links to the page topic. Just keep that in mind.

As for formatting, my only suggestion is keep it as simple as possible. For example, I think the “Attributes” section of each page is overly marked up, and could probably do without the bold and italic on the atts (leaving just code and links). But don’t be too concerned with text formatting at this point, that’s something that can work itself out over time. More important right now is just structuring the page correctly and getting the words right, and in that respect it’s looking great to me!

As for wiki discussion…it can happen here in TextBook forum (one reason it’s here) or in the “discussion” side of a given wiki page. The problem about the latter is that nobody knows anyone makes a comment there if they are not already “watch”-ing the page.

There are two cool wiki extensions we might try: one turns wiki discussion pages into threaded forum topics, just like here. Another adds commenting abilities to the principle wiki page (i.e., not the discussion page) and thus people can linear comments to the page like a blog article. Both could be very useful, but we probably only need to use one or the other in the wiki for consistency. The threads keep discussion separate from the doc (which is nice), while the comments are more visible (perhaps easier to find). Maybe we should run with both and see which mode gets more favor, then drop the lesser?

Ed. See added bold above! :)

Last edited by Destry (2008-10-20 09:35:50)

Destry · 2008-10-20 09:43:55

Destry wrote:

Remember too that we can make use of the mininav lists to solve some kind of grouping aim if categories are not doing it alone.

You’re probably thinking…‘there’s already a mininav being used, yo.’ True. Needs explanation…

The existing mininav is kind of pointless. The main Tags Ref link is always in the left column anyway, so that one is accounted for. The old Alphabetical Listing will be deleted once we get pages nailed down. The Cross-reference is already contextual in the “Attributes” section of each page. Hence, the current mininav on a given tag page can be safely replaced (and more effectively used) by links having more contextual relevance to the given tag’s location/function/etc.

Ther question there, however, is what should those links be? And that’s a good question. What might be ideal are links that go to any location that deals with a topic having to do with use of that tag (e.g., tutorials, FAQ, blog articles…whatever). What this potentially means is that there could be a separate mininav template for each tag page, but that’s OK, templates are free and unlimited. It will be important, however, to use a consistent naming convention for the template, like “Tag ‘name’ related” (where ‘name’ is the name of the tag). By starting all such templates with the constant “Tag,” it keeps these templates together in the template namespace which can aide with template searching/management in the future.

Destry wrote:

For example, I think the “Attributes” section of each page is overly marked up, and could probably do without the bold and italic on the atts (leaving just code and links).

As it turns out, attributes on each tag page are marked up with definition list syntax (“;” = <dt>,” = <dd>), and we have the <dt> bold by default. Thus, we can remove all those and tags that are peppered throughout the <dt> making the wiki page code much cleaner without altering the readability of the <dt> item. Here’s an example of a page having all the and tags removed. Still looks nice.

(Note the “:” — effectively the <dd> — should ideally be starting on a new line under the “;” for easier page editing, and there should not be blank lines before a given “;” or it causes the wiki to create a second instance of a definition list rather than a single list with continuing list items.)

We can use this code reference (in discussion page of Tag Reference category) for authors to copy/paste when created future tag pages. That will ensure new pages are cleaner. We’ll let people work on existing pages (or not) over time. Don’t worry about going back now. Forward only. :)

Last edited by Destry (2008-10-20 13:24:28)

els · 2008-10-20 16:09:22

Bloke wrote:

…perhaps we can get away without mentioning it :-)

OK, my lips are sealed :)

Destry
At first I had the impression that your intention was to replace all <pre> tags with <code>, so that was how I started out. But code blocks are really awkward to code that way. So I haven’t been very consistent and at some point started to use <pre> again for code blocks. I’ll go back and change it if you let me know how you want it.

I will mind the definition lists from now on, I’ve been removing blank lines but didn’t think of starting the : on a new line as well. And remove all  and  tags…
I’ll go back to clean up the ones I’ve already done when all this is finished…

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#49 2008-10-19 00:41:04

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#50 2008-10-19 00:51:07

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#51 2008-10-19 00:53:35

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#52 2008-10-19 16:31:24

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#53 2008-10-19 17:42:24

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#54 2008-10-19 18:41:45

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#55 2008-10-19 19:22:40

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#56 2008-10-19 19:34:38

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#57 2008-10-20 08:24:47

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#58 2008-10-20 09:09:02

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#59 2008-10-20 09:43:55

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#60 2008-10-20 16:09:22

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

Board footer