Revo Tag Taxonomy

Here’s what I have for the Revo Tag Taxonomy. Let me know if you say any problems with it (I really, really hope not  ).

Content Tags [[*ResourceField/TvName]]

Chunk Tags [[$ChunkName]]

Snippet Tags [[SnippetName]]

Settings Tags [[++SettingName]]

Placeholder Tags [[+PlaceholderName]]

Link Tags [[~ResourceId]]

Language Tags [[%LanguageStringKey]]

Looks right. Now toss in Property Sets and Filter modifiers and you’ll be set.

Quote from: rthrash at Feb 27, 2009, 10:19 AM

Looks right. Now toss in Property Sets and Filter modifiers and you’ll be set.

Are they Tags, and if so, what do they look like?

Quote from: BobRay at Feb 27, 2009, 03:59 PM

Are they Tags, and if so, what do they look like?

I think he means modifiers. I don’t have examples of Filters, but here’s an example of ’TestSnippet’ using the ’WideMenus’ property set, and setting a tag-specific ’filter’ property:

I was just kidding (I forgot the emoticon).

I do have a proposal, though, with respect to Property Sets in Tags.

I suggest that either

1. We call them @bindings that only work in tags (@propertySetName).

or

2. We change the token: [[SnippetName^PropertySetName]]

Quote from: BobRay at Feb 27, 2009, 10:57 PM

I was just kidding (I forgot the emoticon).

I do have a proposal, though, with respect to Property Sets in Tags.

I suggest that either

1. We call them @bindings that only work in tags (@propertySetName).

or

2. We change the token: [[SnippetName^PropertySetName]]

Hmmm, I really don’t want to change the token at this point, and neither am I a fan of calling them @bindings. I personally wish @bindings never existed TBH, but they do. I mean, really, write a snippet. But regardless of my personal feelings, @bindings appear in TV values only, i.e. in content, which can only be located within the parts of a tag that are escaped with the ` character, so I don’t see any problem using the @ character in a tag name for a different purpose than those which "might" appear in a tag property value under special circumstances.

I tend to agree that we’d be better off without @bindings. I was just concerned about the possible confusion on the part of users who will see [[snippet@propertySet]] and think it’s an @binding and the general bad practice of using the same token for two completely different things (however safe it is). I thought we might head that off by just calling it a "special" @binding and covering it when we talk about @bindings.

I don’t suppose you’d consider using @@ for property set attachment.

I can live with the current setup, but it’s hard to know where to cover @bindings because they don’t seem to fall into any of the categories we have.

BTW, can’t @bindings be used in snippet parameters?

This is in addition to the snippet/chunk/template parameters that start after the ?.

re: @BINDINGS

What if those were simply aliases to small utility snippets?

@SELECT and @INHERIT are two which are tremendously useful on the manager side for creating custom input values or even forms. How would snippets (in the classic sense) address this tidbit o’ functionality, since snippets traditionally can’t be run inside the manager? Example: we use @SELECT on the input option values to build lists based on other pages that magically update when new stuff is added, without having to ever touch creating a checkbox array manually. End users intuitively and instantly "get it" and you don’t have to worry about maintaining the input form values:



In the example above, the list of individuals is built from a set of pages, with one page representing each individual, using @SELECT as mentioned above.

And the input option is:

@SELECT id,pagetitle FROM {PREFIX}site_content WHERE parent=5

This is such a life saver for folks like me, i hope this type of things are not taken away from us in Revo.