[pmwiki-users] Input recipe

[Joachim Durchholz]

Joachim Durchholz wrote:

> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:37:07AM +0200, Dominique Faure wrote:
>>
>>> At Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:13 AM [GMT+1=CET], Patrick R. Michaud 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmm, I was thinking of using "(:input ... :)" as a possible
>>>> markup for the edit form. Should we see at all about merging
>>>> these ideas together, or should they remain strictly separate?
> 
> Dunno. (:input ...:) just seemed the most straightforward markup for 
> what I was doing. I don't know much about the edit form, so I can't say 
> whether a merge would be fruitful.
> Anybody got a pointer so I can take a look?

Found it myself :-)

A merge seems sensible. The main differences are:

1) Control and attribute terminology.
That's something that warrants a conscious decision, but the 
architecture allows changing it without trouble, so this isn't a serious 
problem.

2) Background data threading.
There's no provision for that in the Forms recipe yet, so it's easy to add.

3) Documentation.
The Input docs are far more formal. The Forms docs are explaining things 
by example. I'm not sure how to best merge these - both approaches have 
their merits.

I don't think the recipes should remain separate. They're essentially 
doing the same things. In fact the next thing I'm going to do right now 
is to take forms.php, add session support, and upload that as input.php 
on the Cookbook.Input page. (Maybe rename Input to FormsDetails.)


As an aside note, I just documented the (relatively new) ParseArgs 
function on Cookbook.Functions.

Regards,
Jo