Feature request: Process addToBody

There's a related case to ProcessAddToHeadAdds, which perhaps should be called ProcessAddToBodyStart - it's needed by Google Analytics the new versions of which now wants to be invoked from the <body>

I had a discussion about this with someone on IRC a few days (18th Aug?) back. I don't recall with whom and the logs at http://koala.ilog.fr/twikiirc/bin/irclogger_logs/twiki are presently missing.

• Guess you talked to iradel , whoever that may be, and it was on the 17th.

-- Contributors: MartinCleaver - 21 Aug 2008

Discussion

This kinda suggests that the ADDTOHEAD solution is not generic enough, and a "ADDREQUIRE"/"EXPANDREQUIRES" is needed. More later.

-- CrawfordCurrie - 21 Aug 2008

I imagine we once talked about recursive TMPL:DEFs like

TMPL:DEF{foo} TMPL:P{foo} add my stuff here TMPL:END

With this in place we could add to the body extending the SKIN path and redefining the beforetext or aftertext macro in a template recursively. Not sure if that roles back some of the findings we had on ProcessAddToHeadAdds.

-- MichaelDaum - 23 Aug 2008

I have implemented ProcessAddToHeadAdds. Any ideas how to proceed on this enhancement?

-- ArthurClemens - 26 Sep 2008

I don't think recursive TMPL:DEF's is obvious enough (for sure, I have difficulty getting my head around it). Aside from anything else, there is no way to populate a TMPL:DEF from plugin code.

This is rather like the problem we have with plugin handlers. You have to choose where in the rendering pipeline to call plugin handlers; similarly, the skin author has to choose where in the templates to support arbitrary content insertion.

Right now I'm favouring something like a generic version of ADDTOHEAD.

-- CrawfordCurrie - 27 Sep 2008

We have some nasty examples of string substitution in templates, for example SPLIT. But this creates horribly nested and hard to maintain code.

So I think so too: addToBody(postition) that can re-use code from addToHead. Where position could default to "end". Or $ if we use regex.

-- ArthurClemens - 27 Sep 2008

Proposal has been "resting" since 2008. Obviously no-one wants it enough to implement it, so Rejected.

-- CrawfordCurrie - 21 Feb 2012

Commenting is disabled while not logged in