[pmwiki-users] "Page Properties" was (:title:) misfeature

Patrick R. Michaud pmichaud at pobox.com
Thu Mar 30 08:21:18 CST 2006

On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 12:23:29PM +1200, John Rankin wrote:
> On Monday, 27 March 2006 1:54 PM, John Rankin <john.rankin at affinity.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Sunday, 26 March 2006 8:52 AM, Patrick R. Michaud <pmichaud at pobox.com> wrote:
> >>This is a known (mis)feature; the (:title:) directive from
> >>included pages can inadvertently override or become a title for
> >>the page that includes it.  
> >
> >One obvious approach would be to separate page data from page 
> >metadata, with a separate edit form for a page's metadata. The 
> >descriptive metadata are the current (:title:), (:keywords:) 
> >and (:description:) directives.

They would then be "page attributes", and ought to be handled by

> On further thought, the following directives could all move to
> a "Page Properties" action:
> noheader, nofooter, noleft, noright, nogroupheader, 
> nogroupfooter, noaction and perhaps comment.

This would seem to have the side effect of preventing such
directives to be called from (:include:), unless we somehow
specify that certain properties from included pages affect the 
current page.  I know that I often make use of the ability to 
put such directives in an included page (e.g., a groupheader or

I'm thinking that the real solution to the (:title:) issue is
to just redefine the (:title:) markup so that it doesn't directly
affect {$Title}, but just sets the page's "title=" attribute.
This is what (:keywords:) and (:description:) currently do.

Since attributes are determined when the page is saved and
without using any included pages, any (:title:) attribute in
an included page wouldn't affect the page's title.  For those
few sites that want (:title:) to be able to come from an
included page, they can re-customize the (:title:) markup to
give it the previous behavior.

Anyone agree/disagree?


More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list