Thanks jay. muy useful.

Is the template structure going to change much from now until the final 3.2 release?

I doubt that the template structure in any of the template would change at all between now and launch. I think at this point, we're pretty set, barring any unforseen bugs.

So it's safe to start working on new templates now?

Well, it's been safe since we released the new templates, which makes me think I'm misunderstanding your question. I think there have only been cosmetic changes to the templates since we released them in beta-2.

Nope, not misunderstanding at all Jay. I just wanted to make sure the structure didn't change, but you answered that earlier.

Okay, cool. Customize away!

Oh, one more thing I forgot: You can always use the MTCommentFields tag if you don't care about customizing every detail of the comment form. That tag is a complete replacement for the complex tag structure necessary to create the comment form.

You sacrifice control for ultimate simplicity. Not for everyone, but for some, the recommendation will be the best you've been given all week.

The reason we have never used MTCommentFields in the default templates is because many users will want to customize the section and it's an illustrative example of how the fields should be set up.

Hmm, now that I actually write that, it doesn't sound so smart...

Okay, informal non-binding poll: Should we be using MTCommentFields in the templates or stay with what we have today?

Informal non-binding opinion from someone where it took a long time to get brave enough to dig into templates and really mess things up. ;P

I'd say let it stay as is, but be very, very clear in the documentation about this possibility of simplifying things down to the point of select from here to here, delete and inset MTCommentFields instead. Of course the drawbacks of doing so, should be highlighted so people can make an informed decision.

Simplify. Those that needs complex will hack what you put in there anyway.

I think before you do replace it, I would like some explanation of how much of the form MTCommentFields replaces. From my initial test, it appears everything....

could you post an example for a "recent comments" snipplet? My old one seems not to work any longer (had the archives\ hardcoded between the tags)

That looks pretty slick, Jay. It's a lot cleaner than the stuff I currently have in my individual archive templates. Of course, the question is, how much hacking will I have to do to get it to look and feel the way I want it? :-)

Thank you for this, Jay. It helps a lot.

I think you should leave it how it is, but make the option of MTCommentsField more obvious.

I agree completely with Sara's comments above.

I'd say let it stay as is, but be very, very clear in the documentation about this possibility of simplifying things down to the point of select from here to here, delete and inset MTCommentFields instead.

I look forward to seeing the official release of MT 3.2. Can't wait!

Nods, as is where is - MTCommentFields as a default is totally inflexible for those who like to lay things out their own way..

I really like the idea of having barebones templates made available for all the templates (although not as primary default templates obviously) - they would make redesigning MT layouts much more user-friendly.

Out of curiosity, I tried the MTCommentFields and got the following:

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: translate() in /home/gnomegrr/public_html/cgi-bin/type/php/lib/function.MTCommentFields.php on line 23

Just wanted to add that I, too, would like to see a similar treatment for other templates as well. From my beginner's perspective, it is much easier to understand the tags when they are not obscured by presentation code. I've always been afraid of erasing something important; I am much more likely to experiment with this as a starting point.

Okay, right now, we're a little short on manpower and we're trying to not only get the bugs fixed, but the docs ready and I have another 15 feature posts to get out plus some tutorials here on the beta blog.

It may be a little while until I can strip those down.

However, if any of you MT old-timers want to give it a shot, I'll be sure to link to it prominently.

By the way, two more things:

Elizabeth, if you're a newbie, you'd be better in the end not touching the templates until the beta is finished.

Gnomegrrl, please file that bug. Thanks.

I'll gladly take a shot at breaking down some of the other templates into bare-bones representations.

Anyone got a request for a specific one to start with? (Otherwise, I'll start with the Main Index.)

Grrrrrr.........

I just spent the last two hours carefully cleaning out almost every bit of html/css from the very template you just provided.

I hate you*.

I know, I know. I should have come a looking here first before plowing head first into the template.

Still, I hate you*.

• Just kidding. Actually, I am going to take this and redo my template anyway. I cleaned out a bit too much.

Right, here we go:

Barebones Main Index template, available in two flavours:

• With the sidebar (search box, archive listings, &c.)
• Without the sidebar (for those who just want a look at what tags make the entries appear)

If there are any errors, something doesn't make sense, or you just feel that something should be explained better, then let me know.

Oh, and I swiped your descriptions of MTIfCommentsActive and MTIfPingsActive, Jay. Hope you don't mind, but they were much better than anything I could have come up with.

I'll take a look at breaking down some of the other templates sometime tomorrow evening. Unless, of course, someone else does it first, or a general concensus is reached that my attempts stink. : )

Those are great! Thanks g026r! I'll add these to the main entry. No problem on reusing descriptions. Copying is the mark of a great writer -- or is that a plagiarist? I can never remember... :-)

In MT3.2, tidy archvie file template is introduced. I guess %y -> yyyy, %m -> mm %f -> basename.html in individual archive template.

But if a user want to use file template like yyyy/mm/basename/index.html, he can't use MT 3.2's new tidy file template and must use old format like /index.html...

Why dont you introduce one like %b (pure basename not including .extention) ?

I tried %y/%m//index.html, but in this case, %y,%m doesnt work.

%b has already been checked in the code and first appeared in the July 25th nightly.

In previous version, I seperated MTEntryAuthor and MTEntryAuthorNickname completly.

MTEntyAuthor is generally login ID which is required to enter MT main menu. So I used MTEntryAuthorNickname in Individual archive templates's' Posted by "[MTEntryAuthorNickname]" to reveal my MT login ID from visitors.

I thought this may be trivial but seperation between private MT login ID and public author (nick)name is important for security.

In MT3.2, new MTEntryAuthorDisplayName is introduced, and "by default" in Individual archive template, "Posted by [MTEntryAuthorDisplayName]" is used. I think seperation of two is being considered in 3.2

But, [MTEntryTrackbackData] in Individual archive template outputs [dc:creator="author name"] ie. MT login ID, as previous version, although an author sets "DisplayName". I think if a user set additional Username, he means hiding his login ID.

So in that case(setting DisaplyName definetly), I think it's right never to show author's login ID(user name) unless a user uses explicitly related tags like [MTEntryAuthor or MTEntryAuthorUsername]. Am I right?

I saw nightly version too. but as before, MTEntryTrackbackData's dc:creator value is author's user name not display name.

Can it be modified?

I agree with others: leave the simplest version in the templates, but provide the complexe version in the help. Perhaps even include a commented link to the updated version in the template.

..anyone else getting 500 errors on trying to do a search with 3.2b-20050727 ?? (with search box provided for visitors to the blog)

oops sorry, wrong thread

FYI I get a rebuild error on the individual archive page now:

Building date-based archive 'Monthly20050701000000' failed: Build error in template 'Date-Based Archive': Error in tag: You used an 'MTEntryTitle' tag outside of the context of an entry; perhaps you mistakenly placed it outside of an 'MTEntries' container?

FYI I get a rebuild error on the barebones individual archive page now:

Building date-based archive 'Monthly20050701000000' failed: Build error in template 'Date-Based Archive': Error in tag: You used an 'MTEntryTitle' tag outside of the context of an entry; perhaps you mistakenly placed it outside of an 'MTEntries' container?

oh feck, never mind, I pasted it into the monthly rather than the individual template.. doh.. I'll try that one again..