Re: [htmltmpl] RFC: Template Tag Attributes

[Timm M. <tm...@ag...>]

At 01:10 PM 6/2/04 -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Timm Murray wrote:
>
> > I have a project which involves changing our current pages using SSI
> > #includes into using an HTML::Template-based solution instead.  The
> > question of how to search these templates came up, and I've suggested using
> > htdig:// with a filter program that will convert the templates into text
> > for indexing.
>
>I suggest you use a web-spider to index your site, which would of
>course run HTML::Template to produce output.  That way you index
>everything the end-user sees, not just the static parts of the page.
>I don't know for sure but I bet htdig:// comes with a web spider.  If
>not 'wget -r' is handy in a pinch!

See other responses.


> > Inevitably, there will be certain pages using TMPL_INCLUDE tags.  I imagine
> > that most of these will contain data that will not want to be searched for,
> > such as footers, and therefore my filter program can simply ignore
> > them.  However, I don't feel safe in making the blanket assumption that
> > /all/ included files don't need to be searchable.
>
>Now you've lost me.  There's lots of stuff in an HTML page that
>shouldn't be searched for.  Stuff like headers and footers in includes
>is just the tip of the ice-berg.  Why obsess over this?

I want to give content authors more control over what portions of a 
document are searched for.


> > Is it possible to add a flexible attribute system to the current
> > HTML::Template design?  I'm thinking of something like this:
> >
> > <TMPL_INCLUDE NAME="file.txt" SEARCHABLE="no">
>
>I'd write that:
>
>   <TMPL_INCLUDE NAME="file.txt"><!-- SEARCHABLE="no" -->
>
>That way HTML::Template does its job, same as always, and your code
>can key on the special comment.

Yes, I think this is the way to go.


> > I'm sure it can be done with a filter, but frankly, I think that's a
> > cop-out solution, being that the current filter mechanism does not have a
> > way to hook into HTML::Template's parser.
>
>Why would you need to hook into the parser to implement this?

For the attribute syntax I originally suggested, it needs to be notified of 
the extra attributes (which I think would be useful for more than just this 
instance).  More generally, filters should hook into the parser directly 
instead of merely being fed the content to be processed.