-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 998
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Also support antisymmetric relationships #314
Comments
I don't believe this would fix #246 as you won't be able to paginate the taxonomies pages or provide a different RSS feed for each? |
I don't know about the pagination, but for RSS feeds, it works the same as the page template right? So, instead of outputting a page, you would output a feed with all pages that reference a term. Here's the relevant Tera code: Taxonomy terms would need to become like regular, user editable pages. See albums for example: |
The issue with that afaik is that the reference pages (including RSS) will need to be created manually . That was my first suggestion for custom taxonomies but I can see how having the pages be set-up automatically would be a big advantage |
@mitchtbaum did I miss something or is my last post correct? |
@Keats I'm not sure what you mean by reference pages. References are fields, so pages that have them would reuse the same template. |
You are saying it fixes the #246 issue, which contains auto-generated RSS and list/individual taxonomies pages but I don't see how #315 would fix that. It seems to be kind of orthogonal to me, you would use references if you want to mention some other related articles/pages on a page but it doesn't do the same job as taxonomies |
@naturallymitchell reviving this issue and the PR associated with it. |
Currently, in order to represent data relationships, users can only use quasiordered sets, ie taxonomies or sections, with predefined structure. Support for more intuitive relationships and with ease of ad-hoc structuring could come with partial ordered sets, using references. Hierarchies would still work using a common codebase, simply by continuing to model data types without their antisymmetric relation and using similar template logic.
This provides a deep fix for #246.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: