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

Better system for defining what content should be annotable #6

Open
afiore opened this issue Jun 1, 2011 · 0 comments
Open

Better system for defining what content should be annotable #6

afiore opened this issue Jun 1, 2011 · 0 comments
Labels

Comments

@afiore
Copy link
Contributor

afiore commented Jun 1, 2011

Currently the plugin includes the Annotator on the basis of a single URL pattern defined in the settings page. This is far from being a satisfactory solution, and is not fine grained and user friendly as it should be. On the contrary, It's practically impossible to come up with a regex that matches posts belonging to one or multiple tags or categories.

For instance, if the index page for the blog posts tagged 'bar' is accessible at the URL http://blogaddress/tags/bar, this will be matched by the regex: /\/tags\/bar\/.*$/. However, there is practically no way to define a regex for matching the single URLs of the posts tagged 'bar', as these are typically generated by combining only the date and title, and not their categories or tags .

Perhaps a better approach would be to devise an inclusion mechanism based only on two criteria.
The Annotator would be automatically included for:

  • All blog posts belonging to the special category annotable
  • All blog posts having the custom field annotable set to true.

Finally, the annotator will not be included if a blog post belongs to the annotable category but also has the annotable custom field set to false.

@ghost ghost assigned afiore Jun 1, 2011
@afiore afiore removed their assignment Apr 5, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant