[pmwiki-users] New {$$ } and {( )} markups [Was: Can any of the form recipes do this?]

[Hans]

Tuesday, April 3, 2007, 4:54:13 PM, Patrick wrote:

> Well, I don't know about "in a template".  My intent has always
> been that {(...)} would be rendering markup, not something
> substituted in a template.

Okay. Then I need more clarification. I am confused.
Fox has used date stamping markup like {date:d.m.Y - H:i} up till now.
I changed that today to {(date:....)}.
This is used in templates, and Fox uses the date function to
substitute the template placeholder for a hard string, i.e.
something like 03.04.2007 - 17:01, to be put into the target page.

Will the {(date )} markup you propose interfere with this?

From your answer above it seems to me that Fox will need to continue
to replace a {(date ...} pattern for timestamping posts. This is okay
as long as there is no collusion of markups. So the date: may be
rather helpful to retain. Or am I missing something?

I suppose I could use a general date markup and pass its value to Fox
via a POST field. But using the special replacement pattern for
{(date:..)} and {(strftime: ..)} avoids an extra input field to catch
the value of a date markup.

> And I much prefer the strftime date syntax to PHP's date syntax --
> strftime is more standard, and it's much easier to write things like:

>     {(date fmt="Today is %Y-%m-%d")}

> than to write

>     {(date fmt="\T\o\d\a\y\ \i\s Y-m-d")}

Why do you want to put "Today is " into the markup, and not have it
outside: Today is {(date Y-m-d)} ?


  ~Hans