[phil65]

Feel free to discuss or give your +1 / -1, either here or on GitHub.
https://github.com/xbmc/xbmc/pull/9114

[User 224999]

+1

[wyrm]

+1

[scott967]

I take it this is for all includes, not just ones that take params?

scott s.
.

[sualfred]

+1 for changing that tag.

But I would call it <include param="%s">.
Defintion is such a long word

Edit:
And it seems that it's predestined for making a typo..

[Jayz2K]

Hmm, I don't get it.
You mean :

definition <include definition="MyInclude">
call <include name="MyInclude">

or both <include definition="MyInclude"> ?

Is is intended to separate calls end defs ?

EDIT : Just my 2 cents but until I get if this is typo only (sublimetext ?) I'm fine with the name="" tag but that's right it maybe needs to clear if it's call or def. Since vars work also with the same tag as def, it's somehow confusing me changing it to definition="" (also with <definition> in Advanced includes). So about vars and calls, getting an info is mostly done using $TYPE[] and for consistency what about :

definition <include name="MyInclude">
call <include name="$INCLUDE[MyInclude]"> or <include>$INCLUDE[MyInclude]</include> ?

Anyway, I will adapt to the changes

[Hitcher]

As Phil just pointed out on Slack changing the definition isn't consistent with other definitions ie constants, vars, colors, etc so I suggest we only change calling the include to something other than 'name'. eg call?

Stays the -

PHP Code:

<includes>
    <include name="foo">
        <control type="bar" id="$PARAM[ID]">
        ...
        </control>
    </include>
</includes> 


Changes -

PHP Code:

<include call="foo">
    <param name="bar" value="1" />
    ...
</include> 


[Jayz2K]

@Hitcher :

Definitely sounds better to me. +1

[sualfred]

+1 call is great

[Malthus]

PHP Code:

<include call="foo">
    <param name="bar" value="1" />
    ...
</include> 


I really like this solution! But I think that 'call' suggests that the skin file is actually a program, so I would prefer 'import'. I think this reflects the static nature of the skin a little better.

PHP Code:

<include import="foo">
    <param name="bar" value="1" />
    ...
</include> 


[ronie]

no real preference, but i'll trow in my suggestion anyway :-)

PHP Code:

<include id="foo">
    <param name="bar" value="1" />
    ...
</include> 


[User 224999]

no real preference, but i'll trow in my suggestion anyway :-)

PHP Code:

<include id="foo">
    <param name="bar" value="1" />
    ...
</include> 


This makes the most sense to me...

[phil65]

I would also be fine with "include id". Keep in mind though that changing the syntax of the references is definitely more work for skinners than changing the syntax of the include definitions.

Should I prepare that change then when I find some time? Any objections?

Sorry to BobCratchett for being a bit to quick with pushing for changes.

[User 224999]

I would also be fine with "include id". Keep in mind though that changing the syntax of the references is definitely more work for skinners than changing the syntax of the include definitions.

Should I prepare that change then when I find some time? Any objections?

Sorry to BobCratchett for being a bit to quick with pushing for changes.

The endresult will be

<include definition="blabla">
</include>

and

<include id="blabla">
<param name="blah" value="blah"/>
</include>

right ?

[BigNoid]

no real preference, but i'll trow in my suggestion anyway :-)

PHP Code:

<include id="foo">
    <param name="bar" value="1" />
    ...
</include> 


I dont have a preference either, but id is only used as integer up till now afaik. Maybe new skinners will think you can use alphanumerics for the other id attributes too if we use this?