Perhaps this is obvious, but it was an ‘eureka’ moment for me. I’m wondering if my eureka was correct or simply produced by misfiring neurones—what we use to call stupidity ). I searched but could find no clear direction, but maybe I missed it.
For simplicity and clarity, I have used Sections and Folders synonymously: all pages in a section are associated with a folder of the same name. It has been recommended in a number of places. But a comment on another thread got me re-thinking this (again!). [Thanks @Mr_Fozzie.]
A few questions with a suggestion:
#1: Is my understanding correct that Sections and Folders can be used independently?
- I ‘discovered’ this when I erroneously(?) thought moving a page from one section to another would change the assigned folder. It doesn’t, as you may know.
#2: Would it be beneficial to think of Sections as common display themes (the UI side) and Folders as file structure (the developer’s side)?
#3: Is the following a reasonable suggestion, given Sparkle’s programming?
When developing a website, classify each page on two dimensions:
- a UI display theme, to be grouped in common Sections, and
- a developer’s file structure, to be grouped in specific Folders (maybe the same as sections, maybe not).
This adds a layer of complexity when designing but perhaps could rectify the organisational issues that keep coming up about “show on all/some/one". A well-structured project could conveniently display different themes in different sections (for the user’s experience) and keep structurally organised (for the developer’s clarity). Different pages would be placed in various sections, depending on the display theme, while being stored in different folders, depending on file structure needs. This has implications for page accessibility (i.e., security).
Now that I write this, its seems pretty obvious. Did I miss it somewhere?