[pmwiki-users] Problem wih Include Directives

[Martin Fick]

--- "Patrick R. Michaud" <pmichaud at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:01:42PM -0700, Martin
> Fick wrote:
> > --- "Patrick R. Michaud" <pmichaud at pobox.com>
> wrote:
> > > Oh, wait!  After thinking about it a bit I think
> I
> > > may have a reasonable answer.  I just need a
> good 
> > > page variable marker that means "included page" 
> > > as opposed to "current page", similar to how 
> > > {=$Name} is different from {$Name} in pagelist
> > > templates.
...

> >  {.$Title}  I like this one, unambiguous?
...

> None of those leap out at me (but I admit it's a
> difficult thing).
> 
> How about {<<$Title}, to mean "$Title of the outer
> include"? Would that be too close to {<$Title} ?


I think I was thinking the other way around:  that the
{$Title} would continue to work as is (it would be the
title of the outer page) and that if someone wanted to
be sure to keep the inner (included page's title,)
they could now use the {.$Title} markup.  

With the title this seems less useful (to maintain the
current functionality), but with name and group, it
makes a lot more sense since there are probably plenty
of people taking advantage of the current way that
{$Name} represents the outer (calling?) page.  These
same people are probably particularly the ones who
want the ability to sometimes "peg" the name to the
page in which it is written and wouldn't mind using
the new markup in this case.

Does that make any of them leap out at you now? :)

>  {.$Title}  I like this one, unambiguous?
> 
>  {~$Title}  Looks nice, too home directory like?
>  {^$Title}  Looks nice, implies parent(bad)?
> 
>  {&$Title}  Not pretty, but does seem to convey
"here"
>  {*$Title}  Conveys anywhere?
>  {:$Title}  Too much like a directive?


-Martin


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com