Thread

Or even your own starting templates, if it suits you.

I want to make clear that from a developer standpoint that this is purely a change in terminology. In other words, this:

{exp:weblog:entries weblog="bands"}
is equal to:

{exp:channel:entries channel="bands"}

So, this means I could continue using {exp:weblog:entries} tag pairs in my templates and EE would parse them?

So, this means I could continue using {exp:weblog:entries} tag pairs in my templates and EE would parse them?

Yes, since the muscle memory may have a lot of inertia at the beginning, this will keep working, and log an error to your template parsing log to help you catch it.  I expect by 2.1 we’ll remove it entirely so it would generate a usual page-breaking tag error.

I think with

{exp:content:entries content=“principal”}

the word “content” applies better then weblog, channel or section… content is content, be video, audio, articles or blogs, etc…

Content !!!!!!!!!!!!

Channel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, this means I could continue using {exp:weblog:entries} tag pairs in my templates and EE would parse them?

Yes, since the muscle memory may have a lot of inertia at the beginning, this will keep working, and log an error to your template parsing log to help you catch it.  I expect by 2.1 we’ll remove it entirely so it would generate a usual page-breaking tag error.

Thanks, Derek. Removing support in 2.1 seems fair to me.

I think with

{exp:content:entries content=“principal”}

the word “content” applies better then weblog, channel or section… content is content, be video, audio, articles or blogs, etc…

Content !!!!!!!!!!!!

As was already mentioned, content can come from many different locations in ExpressionEngine: templates, global variables, third party add-ons, etc.  The word content also fails miserably in documentation and conversational usage, e.g.  “Which content is the entry in?”, “You can specify multiple contents in this parameter with a pipe delimited list.”

I think with

{exp:content:entries content=“principal”}

the word “content” applies better then weblog, channel or section… content is content, be video, audio, articles or blogs, etc…

Content !!!!!!!!!!!!

Try writing meaningful documentation with this word. It doesn’t work very well. It also doesn’t describe how EE can be used. “You publish your content to the Content Module and the items in your content can be displayed…” Its actually too general and the word “content” itself is more useful to describe specific things then a general term used to describe how something can work.

I tend to use the term “bucket” when explaining to clients.  LOL

I think the bottom line here is the name “weblog” is a bit confusing in the web 2.0 era, but it would be nice to give back the option to rename as we like, as in the 1.x versions.

Is this nomenclature issue worthy of an outside focus group?

hummmm…ok, “content” to me its more simple, coz i´m in Brazil.
Channel its ok. Anything its better then weblog. I just understood this “weblog” concept after a couple months… 😉

I tend to use the term “bucket” when explaining to clients.  LOL

Bucket brings to mind crock and slop, off the top of my head (and with my wry since of humor), but those are the first two things that came to mind. Nothing wrong with bucket, nothing at all. Time to do the chor-ee-s :ahhh: good call. Bucket is utilitarian for sure.

Finally, a discussion worth my 100th post…

I’m with EllisLab on this one. Waiving the Channel Banner!

Not sure how I feel about ‘Channel’, but i definitely like it more than ‘Weblog’. I think it will require less explanation for customers because of the lack of baggage associated with the word in this context. For me, that is the most relevant part of the terminology change.

Very much liking the idea of an educational set of templates. I’ve built my templates from scratch so far, but it is really helpful to see how other people choose to tackle things.

Channel is the perfect choice.

In the context of templates, each channel tag will allow data to flow through to the user.

Generically, a channel itself doesn’t contain anything. It refers to a data set or a number on the remote, or waterway, among other things. A channel acts as a conduit allowing data - or water to flow through. As such, it is the perfect word to be used in place of Weblog, “channeling” data to specified locations with further specifics within the channel to parse the data.

Looking forward to the new product launch. New Year’s Day would make a perfect release date.

Great, thanks for the update.