Should we use the same key for titles/names?

[tylersticka]

I'm noticing that a little bit of template complexity so far is accounting for pages having titles while patterns have names. I can't remember which ones collections have.

It's not a huge deal, and there may be value in differentiating them. But if not, we may want to consider using the same term for everything for straightforwardness.

---

@mrgerardorodriguez @erikjung

[gerardo-rodriguez]

Now that I'm getting deeper into this, I'm noticing this as well. Do we have a preference of one over the other?

[gerardo-rodriguez]

FWIW, I am not aware of a specific reason to differentiate between them. In working to solve cloudfour/drizzle#22, I'm also finding this awkard. In the case of cloudfour/drizzle#22, it would make more sense for them to have the same key. Does this mean changes would need to happen to the https://github.com/cloudfour/drizzle-builder repo? I'm not clear of the separation here.

[erikjung]

@mrgerardorodriguez Looking at the docs for the builder, it says that name is auto-assigned to each pattern: https://github.com/cloudfour/drizzle-builder#patterns (not sure this is 100% accurate).

I believe every instance of title is simply a manually added front-matter property. Based on these two observations, I think name should be used identify specific patterns, and that title should mean "the page title".

That said, I need to see exactly what the builder is doing under the hood to verify how name is treated. We might be getting inconsistent behavior with pattern variations (e.g. button/large.hbs would need a manual override to be labeled as "Large Button" vs. just "Large").

Regarding your partial, what challenges are you facing? I think the partial should be ignorant of these title and name properties, and know only what you pass into it via hash properties or inner content.

[gerardo-rodriguez]

I think the partial should be ignorant of these title and name properties, and know only what you pass into it via hash properties or inner content.

You were spot on. :)