Difference between revisions of "Talk:Semantic Wiki/Templates"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: We should use ParserFunctions on these templates, if we don't already. That way, items that are not specified will not be just empty, but the entire row can be omitted, for example. --~~~...) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
We should use ParserFunctions on these templates, if we don't already. That way, items that are not specified will not be just empty, but the entire row can be omitted, for example. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 13:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | We should use ParserFunctions on these templates, if we don't already. That way, items that are not specified will not be just empty, but the entire row can be omitted, for example. --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 13:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | :That is something I have to look at. I stopped looking at the parser functions when I realized how many of them weren't supported under the old wiki. I have to go back and look at them again, and maybe rethink some of the RB templates to account for the specific positions. The RB stuff was designed to be more generic. Under the new semantic stuff, we'll need some specifics. --[[User:Indirik|Indirik]] 13:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:42, 6 February 2009
We should use ParserFunctions on these templates, if we don't already. That way, items that are not specified will not be just empty, but the entire row can be omitted, for example. --Tom 13:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- That is something I have to look at. I stopped looking at the parser functions when I realized how many of them weren't supported under the old wiki. I have to go back and look at them again, and maybe rethink some of the RB templates to account for the specific positions. The RB stuff was designed to be more generic. Under the new semantic stuff, we'll need some specifics. --Indirik 13:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
