40
edits
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Comments [[User:Conor325]] == | == Comments [[User:Conor325]] == | ||
==== | ==== why a separate condition step? ==== | ||
As query's are free-form, most of the time, conditions will be applied as part of a query. The conditions in the rule would follow on, sifting out data to match generation. The question is, is this overkill and overly complex? Why not make query scope match what must be built. If the query returns data then content will be built around it - there is no nuance per se. Want variations of content then vary the query. But isn't this less efficient? What if you want to share most of a query and add nuance in multiple rules? Well, yes, this could be supported but it adds complexity to the syntax and does it really give much more USEFUL power? | |||
BTW, in this view (query applies all conditions), the current template's conditions is the query section. There is no separation. | |||
==== RDF caching and refresh ==== | ==== RDF caching and refresh ==== | ||
edits