[pmwiki-users] Cookbook recipes and organization

[Joachim Durchholz]

Patrick R. Michaud wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 03:48:23PM +0200, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> 
>> The recipe could have been kept simple by splitting it in two:
>> a) Just allow through <b>, <i>, <u>, but no attributes.
>> (Essentially a tone-down of the original recipe.) This would also
>> have allowed to simplify the recipe by removing all the
>> security-related warnings.
> 
> Part of the advantage of the original recipe was that (I think) it
> was a good example of using the Markup() function, and a lot of
> people reading "CustomMarkup" are always asking for examples. 
> EnableHTML "hides" that to some extent.

Ah, right.

One could, of course, directly refer to an uploaded file such as 
http://www.pmwiki.org/pmwiki/uploads/Cookbook/enablehtml.php for an 
example of Markup() usage.

> Beyond that, whenever I download and install a cookbook script I tend
> wonder how often I'll need to check back for new versions of the
> script.  But if it's just a few configuration lines in my local.php I
> know I'm only dependent on changes to PmWiki itself.

That's calling for a mailpost facility for uploads ;-)

> That said, your points about EnableHTML are good ones.  (Although 
> I've never been one to worry about '>' appearing in a tag's
> attribute.)

Well, I tend to raise that kind of borderline questions.
It's just the way my mind is working :-)

> I think this recipe might be a case where it's worthy to present both
> approaches, the simple Markup() call enabling the markup, a bit of
> discussion about its merits, and then the EnableHTML() recipe for
> those who would like things handled on their behalf a bit more 
> robustly.
> 
> And perhaps this points to an overall theme -- if there are several 
> relatively short ways to do the same thing that reasonably fit
> together on a page, then present them all.  If the descriptions are
> too long to fit together on a single page, then we can create an
> "overview" page that lists the available solutions and links to the
> separate pages (and perhaps a brief comparison of the approaches).

Good point.

Regards,
Jo