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

web commit by http://ethan.betacantrips.com/: I'm a year wiser; revise accordingly.

master
joey 2007-07-26 20:41:00 +00:00
parent 2ff6e24557
commit e64442aa08
1 changed files with 3 additions and 38 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

41
doc/todo/toplevel_index.mdwn
View File

@ -25,41 +25,6 @@ Here is a patch:
> I would like to suggest another tack, namely a bigger, better special case. > I would like to suggest another tack, namely a bigger, better special case.
> The basic idea is that all indices of the form foo/bar/index get the wiki path foo/bar. > The basic idea is that all indices of the form foo/bar/index get the wiki path foo/bar.
> This makes some things more elegant: > You could do this today using [[todo/index.html_allowed]], except that the toplevel
> > page "index" becomes "", which causes all sorts of chaos. The discussion page would
> * All files having to do with foo/bar are in the foo/bar directory, rather > become /discussion, and the weird parentlinks behavior would go away. --Ethan
> than the (admittedly minor) wart of having the index be in foo/.
> * This sort of addresses [[bugs/broken_parentlinks]] in that example/ is
> guaranteed to be a valid path. (There might be no index there, though.)
> * This is more in line with standard HTML practice, as far as I understand it,
> namely that linking to a/b means a/b/index.html rather than a/b.html.
>
> This would change the inline plugin in strange ways -- I think if foo/index.html
> contains \[[inline "* and !*/Discussion"]], it should skip inlining foo/index.html
> explicitly, but would inline index pages in child directories
> foo/bar/baz/index.html as bar/baz.
>
> It always bothers me that foo/bar/ files need a foo/bar.html in front of them,
> rather than a foo/bar/index.html, as is (to my mind) traditional.
>
> Ethan
>
> Hmm, now I've had time to think about this, and this does conflict pretty hard with foo.html/Discussion
> pages. Well, back to the drawing board.
>
> Well, it seems unlikely that you'll have both foo/bar.html and foo/bar/index.html,
> so why not accept either as foo/bar? This would both preserve backwards
> compatibility, as well as allow foo/bar/Discussion.
>
> Ethan
>
> No, in order for this to work, the wiki path foo/bar/baz could be any of:
>
> * foo/bar/baz.html
> * foo/index/bar/index/baz.html
> * foo/bar/index/baz.html
> * foo/bar/index/baz/index.html
>
> Or many others. Which is probably even hackier than having both foo.html and foo/.
>
> Ethan