33 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
33 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
Changing pagespecs to be relative by default is quite feasible now, but it will cause
|
|
backwards compatibility problems. Should this be marked as a future plan, perhaps at a
|
|
major version number like 2.0? --Ethan
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm looking at making this kind of change at 2.0, added to the list.
|
|
(Update: Didn't make it in 2.0 or 3.0...)
|
|
However, I have doubts that it makes good sense to go relative by default.
|
|
While it's not consitent with links, it seems to work better overall to
|
|
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. Thus I think we've
|
|
learned to accept it as natural, where a new user wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
* bugs, todo, news, blog, users, and sandbox
|
|
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
|