(no commit message)

diff --git a/doc/todo/flexible_relationships_between_pages.mdwn b/doc/todo/flexible_relationships_between_pages.mdwn
index ee3dd8d3a46fc4c5469a18ff2a8fbf3e561f56e0..96ac55c38455016ad37ae0eee418836557623461 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/todo/flexible_relationships_between_pages.mdwn
+++ b/doc/todo/flexible_relationships_between_pages.mdwn
@@ -33,6 +33,11 @@ details
   direction (eg `index`, even though one could declare it as
   `index/isindexof`).
 
   direction (eg `index`, even though one could declare it as
   `index/isindexof`).
 

+  > isindexof is not a very interesting relationship - it just clogs up
+  > the link-map, since the index is "the index of" all pages. I can't
+  > see any situation in which you'd want to do pagespec matching
+  > on it? --[[smcv]]
+

   other verbs are symmetric, eg. `equivalent`, which need different treatment.
 
 * "taglink" style directives
   other verbs are symmetric, eg. `equivalent`, which need different treatment.
 
 * "taglink" style directives


@@ -41,6 +46,18 @@ details
   from the autotag and tagdir features). as there is a `\[[!taglink ...]]`
   directive, there could be an analogous directive for every single directive.
 
   from the autotag and tagdir features). as there is a `\[[!taglink ...]]`
   directive, there could be an analogous directive for every single directive.
 

+  > This is basically the traillink/trailitem duality, too.
+  > I'd be quite tempted to generalize to something like this:
+  >
+  >     We can't fix [[!link blocks="bug123" text="Bug 123"]] until we do this.
+  >
+  >     [[!hiddenlink owner="smcv"]]
+  >
+  > but perhaps that's too wordy?
+  >
+  > I think both trail and tag need their own special processing beyond the
+  > general case, but maybe not? --[[smcv]]
+

 * implementation notes
 
   the way pagespec hooks are implemented required some nasty perl tricks, for
 * implementation notes
 
   the way pagespec hooks are implemented required some nasty perl tricks, for


@@ -49,6 +66,9 @@ details
   ideal. a change in the pagespec declaration api (why not just `hook` like
   everything else) would make the implementation cleaner.
 
   ideal. a change in the pagespec declaration api (why not just `hook` like
   everything else) would make the implementation cleaner.
 

+  > How about replacing `blockedby(bug*)` with `linktype(blockedby bug*)` or
+  > something? Then you'd only need one pseudo-hook. --[[smcv]]
+

 * configuration location
 
   i aimed for static configuration of the `block_names` in the setup file. this
 * configuration location
 
   i aimed for static configuration of the `block_names` in the setup file. this


@@ -75,6 +95,9 @@ details
   consider what is in @links to be a representation of which hyperlinks are
   there, and in this case, none are generated).
 
   consider what is in @links to be a representation of which hyperlinks are
   there, and in this case, none are generated).
 

+  > taglink and traillink already count as wikilinks without generating
+  > any visible HTML. --[[smcv]]
+

 implementation
 ==============
 
 implementation
 ==============