urosm
/
ikiwiki
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

web commit by http://ethan.betacantrips.com/: clarify -- I think relative pagespecs make more sense to new users

master
joey 2007-02-25 21:22:46 +00:00
parent e31a892575
commit 220811c46f
1 changed files with 20 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

21
doc/roadmap/discussion.mdwn
View File

@ -9,4 +9,23 @@ have pagespecs be absolute by default, IMHO. --[[Joey]]
I think after you work with ikiwiki for a while, it "makes more sense" for
them to be absolute, but I definitely remember tripping over absolute
pagespecs a few times when I was just starting out. --Ethan
pagespecs a few times when I was just starting out. Thus I think we've
learned to accept it as natural, where a new user wouldn't.
* bugs, todo, news, blog, users, sandbox, and patchqueue
are all at "toplevel", so they are equivalent whether
pagespecs are absolute or relative.
* soc doesn't refer to any pages explicitly so it doesn't matter
* various plugins have pagespecs at plugins/foo.mdwn: map, linkmap, orphans,
pagecount, pagestats
* I'd say most of these make more sense as having abs. pagespecs
* I note that your sitemap is at toplevel, but there's no reason
not to allow putting it in a special meta/ directory.
* examples/blog and examples/software site need to have relative pagespecs,
but they're pretty special cases -- for a real site those things
will probably be toplevel
* plugins/contrib makes more sense to inline relative (though it doesn't
right now)
Maybe inline should use relative pagespecs by default, and other plugins
don't? --Ethan