Lingo-ology

Ok, Jason? Jeff?

Quote from: rthrash at Nov 08, 2005, 09:59 AM

Sounds very cool to me, espcially the chunk with passable paramters. These should be able to take placeholders as a parameter I think, btw.

Hmmm,

Placeholders will act as a conduit for passing information withing the system. for example you can pass values from one snippet (plugin) to another using placeholders.

It all sounds good to me.

What would we do with templates then? Leave them as is or would they become chunk-like plugins with their own category?

Speaking of categories, I think we should implement the categories functionality which is half there for Modules with our plugin hybrids. If we make everythinga plugin, we’ll have such a long list of plugins, it’ll be unweildly unless we can find a good way to search and organize them.

I like the templates as just a display category for chunks/plugins.

We could in fact have a category which is hard coded for available options (chunk/snippet/plugin/template) and then a subcategory for organization on the page, which is unique to the application. This could include in snippets things like "menu builders", "blogging tools", etc... kinda following the organization of the file cabinet proposed heirarchy.

Quote from: aNoble at Nov 08, 2005, 10:13 AM

It all sounds good to me.

What would we do with templates then? Leave them as is or would they become chunk-like plugins with their own category?

Well Templates can remain as is. We can use HTML plugins to replace chunks.

Speaking of categories, I think we should implement the categories functionality which is half there for Modules with our plugin hybrids. If we make everythinga plugin, we’ll have such a long list of plugins, it’ll be unweildly unless we can find a good way to search and organize them.

True but how about calling it Labels or Tags instead. This way we would tag or label every thing inside the manager. Ryan was suggesting that we tag documents but I think the same can be done for every resource.

"Tags" are a great choice for being both concise and semantically correct. And they’re quite the rage these days with all the cool kids too boot!

Quote from: rthrash at Nov 08, 2005, 10:28 AM

"Tags" are a great choice for being both concise and semantically correct. And they’re quite the rage these days with all the cool kids too boot!

If we are all for using Tags then I think we will be needing a Tags Manager. It’s just a little screen where we can create and remove tags or assign objects (or resources) to a tag. From the Resource page we should also be able to handle dynamically created tags

I like Tags too, but if we call categories tags then we need to come up with another name for MODx tags like [[]], [**], [++], [~~], etc.

Actually, is there any reason we shouldn’t combine all the MODx tags together? Why can’t we just use [[]] to reference anything? We’d just have to enforce unique names between them all. I know one of the most confusing things to newcomers is the complicated tag system.

This might make it impossible to embed tags within other tags though (ie [~[(site_start)]~] ), but this only works half of the time anyway, depending on what you’re trying to pass to what, so maybe that’s not a bad thing.

Perfect Raymond.

Adam, that’s a very interesting idea too, and I’m not opposed to it...

I’m all for calling them tags... and doing our research into how to best utilize them with services like Technorati and del.icio.us

and I don’t believe our template replacement `tags` are in any way related to this, nor should we call those tags. Those we should call something else as a group to avoid the whole tagging craze.

In my book tags (freeform or structured) = categories and "tags" = the right word to use.

Now, what to call the MODx/Tattoo calls, how about just calling them "calls" (which are simply wrapped in double-brackets).