"Magnus Manske" <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote
in message
news:fab0ecb70709240411tb301940tb53f7eb531aedfae@mail.gmail.com...
On 9/24/07, Mark Clements <gmane(a)kennel17.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> Both of these points seem unnecessarily limiting! What if the template
has
> a name parameter? What if the input needs to be
on more than one line?
I
> see no reason not to build with this flexibility
now - it will only end
up
being a future
request if not, and a lot harder to fix if we have hacked
together a clumsy syntax that we have to stick to for backward
compatability.
Not sure we're in sync here. In the mail you replied to, I agreed to
alter the extension so you can write
<templatelink name="The name of the link">
Test
|param1=value1
|param2=value2
</templatelink>
What's the problem with that?
My confusion - I thought you meant something like:
<templatelink>
Test
param1=value1
param2=value2
name=The name of the link
</templatelink>
Where (a) 'name' was a parameter in the body of the tag, and (b) you were
unable to have multi-line parameter values.
> What about the suggestion I made yesterday, about
using the standard
link
> syntax, potentially with an extra symbol at the
beginning? So {{Test}}
> means transclude, [[Template:Test]] means link to and [[#Test]] (or
> [[#Template:Test]] if you like) means link to a special page, showing
the
> rendered template.
>
> Of course, I've now realised that # is not a suitable character for
this,
as
> although it is invalid in page names, it is valid
in links as an in-page
> link, so maybe another character would need to be used (how about
question
> mark?) Or perhaps use [[Test#]] instead?
>
> (See my previous post for more details about my suggestion).
>
> This idea is much more concise than <templatelink>Test</templatelink>
which
is what is
currently proposed...
More concise, yes, as '' is more concise than <i>. But
<templatelink>
is a lot cleaner IMHO. Just imagine the mess we'd be in with the
redesign of the reference system if we had used wikisyntax for that...
I expect <templatelink> to be buried in templates anyway, and rarely
used directly. Its use only makes sense if you have a single large
"form" (template) to fill with lots'o' data sets.
Hmmm... well if that is the case then perhaps you're approach might be
better. I guess it also means it can be written as an extension (which is
probably more appropriate anyway) rather than having to build it into the
core code.
Also, do I understand correctly that <templatelink name="The name of the
link">test|param1=value1|param2=value2</templatelink> would also work? And
if so, what about:
<templatelink name="The name of the link">test|param1=a long value
with
multiple
lines|param2=value2</templatelink>
If both the above will work OK, then the only distinction between the two
methods is the use of <templatelink></templatelink> as opposed to a more
standard link syntax: [[]] with some modifier. The first is clearer, the
second is more concise. If that is the only difference then I agree that
clearer is better.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)