Skip to content
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

Excerpt should look for <desc> as child of <entries> #13

Closed
kswedberg opened this issue Oct 16, 2012 · 10 comments
Closed

Excerpt should look for <desc> as child of <entries> #13

kswedberg opened this issue Oct 16, 2012 · 10 comments

Comments

@kswedberg
Copy link
Member

If a method has 2 <entry> nodes inside an <entries> node, we are going to have an additional <desc> node as a child of <entries>. For these methods, grunt-jquery-content should use this new <desc> instead of just using the <desc> inside the first <entry>

@jzaefferer
Copy link
Member

Is there an existing file to test against?

@jzaefferer
Copy link
Member

I'm not seeing that top-level <desc> element being used anywhere at all. The new site pretty much matches what the old site has. Is the extra <desc> supposed to go on top of the entry-listing at the top, where it says "Contents:"? That would make sense, but that's an addition, not a fix or replacement.

@jzaefferer
Copy link
Member

If we want the description to show up before the ToC, just need to add this to the toc-template:

<xsl:apply-templates select="/entries/desc"/>

Result: ...

@kswedberg
Copy link
Member Author

Sorry, Jörn. I realize now that I didn't make the issue very clear. We want grunt-jquery-content to insert that <desc> into the WordPress excerpt, using it instead of the first <entry>'s desc if it's there. The WP templates for the home page and category pages use that excerpt field for the short description. What we're trying to do is have a more complete description on those listing pages for methods such as .val() and .attr() so that they describe both the getter and the setter.

Does that make sense?

@kswedberg
Copy link
Member Author

Your suggestion for the method page is good, too.

@jzaefferer
Copy link
Member

Yep, makes sense. Fixed!

@kswedberg
Copy link
Member Author

Thank you, @jzaefferer!

@kswedberg
Copy link
Member Author

@jzaefferer, can you tag this as 0.5.9 so we can use it? I think that's the way it works, right?

@jzaefferer
Copy link
Member

Looks like I never pushed 0.5.9, not sure if I published it. Anyway, the fix for this is in 0.5.10.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants