On 6/15/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Patrick R. Michaud</b> <<a href="mailto:pmichaud@pobox.com">pmichaud@pobox.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:22:54AM +1000, Kathryn Andersen wrote:<br>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:32:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:<br>> > For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and<br>> > make
Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the<br>> > core distribution, instead of being a recipe/configuration<br>> > change as it is now. This would mean that by default<br>> > every group would add the contents of any
Site.SiteHeader<br>> > page and Site.SiteFooter page to all pages when displayed.<br>><br>> Is this header always included in all groups, or is it a fallback if the<br>> Group.GroupHeader doesn't exist?
<br>><br>> If it is always included in all groups, then Site.AllGroupHeader is<br>> probably a better name.<br><br>Included in all groups.<br><br>Pm</blockquote><div><br>Okay, now you've got me confused.<br><br>
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.
<br><br>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:). Reason being, if you did it the other way, what would happen if you wanted the group header, but not the AllGroupHeader? Which, in most cases, is what I've been doing, since the recipe works this way.
<br><br>Jon<br></div></div>