Hi Dominique, Hi Thomas,
since the structures have a "name" beside
the "title" it's very
difficult to create internal Links when you renamed (rather
"retitled") a structure.
thanks for rising the issue with the 'name' and 'title'. To introduce
a name was a difficult decision for me, and it is definitely not a
final decision, I just wanted to give it a try.
The reasons were the following:
1. People want to change the title of pages without that the URL
changes, so that they don't need to update their bookmarks.
2. People want to use Pier to model existing (static) pages and want
to model the URL to look the exactly the same.
3. People want use strange characters and very long titles, this
makes the URL unreadable and difficult to parse and generate.
4. People want use the same title twice within the same context, this
is impossible if we use the title as an unique key.
You have to always remember the name you gave the
structure first
because if you want to create internal links you have to use now
this name else the link is broken. I don't think thats a good Idea
because no one can guess the hidden "name" of structures....
It is not so hidden after all, you can just copy the part of the URL
into your link.
The situation was not that smooth when we were using
Plone and custom
CMS. Even after a while, a large portion of our user base still had
troubles to make the difference between the name of a structure and
its title when it came to create links. The consequence was that the
sites produced during that period contained a lot of endless pages
and very few links.
Ok, I see that this can be a problem, but I guess that there also a
couple of solutions to this problem:
a. Let the user browse a tree navigator to help them writing the links.
b. Display the current name more clearly in the edit page.
So far, we get a better balance between
cross-referencing and page
size, thanks to the sheer simplicity of the way Pier manages its
links. I fear that we will lose this simplicity if we introduce back
the same concepts that didn't performed that well during our previous
attempts.
The current trial is definitely a loss of simplicity, I agree,
however I don't know of another simple way to get 1. - 4. working
only having a title. If there are any ideas how these problems could
be cleanly solved otherwise, I would be happy to discuss and maybe
(help to) implement them?
Cheers,
Lukas
--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch