63 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
63 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
Some inconsistences around the toplevel [[index]] page:
|
|
|
|
* [[ikiwiki]] is a separate page; links to [[ikiwiki]] should better go to
|
|
the [[index]] though.
|
|
* The toplevel [[ikiwiki/Discussion]] page has some weird parentlinks
|
|
behavior. This could be special cased around with the following patch.
|
|
However, I'm unsure if I like the idea of more special cases around this.
|
|
It would be better to find a way to make the toplevel index page not be a
|
|
special case at all.
|
|
|
|
--- IkiWiki/Render.pm (revision 1187)
|
|
+++ IkiWiki/Render.pm (working copy)
|
|
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@
|
|
my $path="";
|
|
my $skip=1;
|
|
return if $page eq 'index'; # toplevel
|
|
+ $path=".." if $page=~s/^index\///;
|
|
foreach my $dir (reverse split("/", $page)) {
|
|
if (! $skip) {
|
|
$path.="../";
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
> 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.
|
|
> This makes some things more elegant:
|
|
>
|
|
> * All files having to do with foo/bar are in the foo/bar directory, rather
|
|
> 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 |