[pmwiki-users] 2.2.0: add Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter
Patrick R. Michaud
pmichaud at pobox.com
Sun Jun 17 09:50:09 CDT 2007
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 11:06:45AM -0500, Jon Haupt wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Patrick R. Michaud <pmichaud at pobox.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:22:54AM +1000, Kathryn Andersen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:32:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > > > For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
> > > > make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
> > > > core distribution, instead of being a recipe/configuration
> > > > change as it is now.
> > >
> > > Is this header always included in all groups, or is it a fallback if
> > > the Group.GroupHeader doesn't exist?
> > Included in all groups.
> Okay, now you've got me confused.
> I thought that it worked the other way? I think the recipe works as a
> fallback. In other words, where there is no Group.GroupHeader,
> Site.AllGroupHeader is used as the group header. Such that,
> (:nogroupheader:) simply removes whichever one would have been included.
The recipe (http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/AllGroupHeader)
provides both options, but the first option mentioned in the recipe
provides both Site.AllGroupHeader *and* Group.GroupHeader.
So, perhaps we should implement it using the fallback interpretation
instead. Then someone that wants to have both Site.AllGroupHeader
and Group.GroupHeader included would use (:include Site.AllGroupHeader:)
in the Group.GroupHeader.
> If it's not going to work that way, and it's going to be added independent
> from Group.GroupHeader, then I strongly suggest also having
> Site.SiteHeader instead and adding (:nositeheader:).
For some reason I'm not a big fan of (:nositeheader:).
More information about the pmwiki-users