[pmwiki-users] (:include and Attach:

Martin Fick mogulguy at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 25 16:02:23 CDT 2006

--- "Patrick R. Michaud" <pmichaud at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 03:27:44PM -0500, Tegan
> Dowling wrote:
> > On 8/25/06, EuGeNe <eugene at boardkulture.com>
> wrote:
> Actually, this is a case where I think that the
> specification
> would need to go into the included page, not the
> (:include:)
> directive.  In other words, we ought to have
> something in the
> included page that says "all of my links and
> attachments are 
> relative to XYZ".

As an author, my gut tells me that I would prefer
control in the including page to the point where maybe
even a different makup could be used, say: (:render
<page>:) or (:process <page>:) or even (:display
<page>:) making it very explicit.

I think that it is too hard for someone to figure out
(guess) how someone else might possibly use their page
 when including it.  Not only that, but by putting
control in the included page it can only be one way or
the other,  no page could be used both ways.

Imagine this scenario: author A writes pagea.  Author
B comes along and needs to include pagea in pageb and
decides that the current way that included links are
interpreted for pagea does not meet his needs.  Author
B now has to change pagea not knowing whether he is
breaking any other pages that already include pagea. 
This makes it very tough to "fix" pagea.


Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list