Implicit defaults for rendering formats in node .erb templates

[theseanything]

A review comment in PR #4502 discussed that different default rendering behaviours for the render_content_for method with node templates may results in confusion as to what format content should be written in.

It was suggested that we could add multiple methods e.g:

• govspeak_content_for
• text_content_for
• html_content_for

to be explicit in the type of content required.

[theseanything]

This implicit behaviour of different rendering default for different named (render_)content_for blocks has existed since moving to erb templates. Not sure if people have previously found it confusing. The behaviour also documented here.

Some named content must be a specific format (e.g. :title have to always be format :text) A possible issue with explicitly stating the format is that it adds a requirement for the person writing erb templates to know what the required format is for particular named section.

I feel like there's a larger issue around trying to put multiple formats in erb template and whether thats the most appropriate way of specifying content.

[kevindew]

@theseanything I've opened up a draft PR to propose an approach: #4527

Revising on my earlier suggestion I felt we didn't need the word content and could go with rather succinct text_for, html_for and govspeak_for methods, which also seems to make the language more natural.

I don't think it covers all the concerns you've had though, but hope you think of it as an improvement.

[theseanything]

Closing as we've settled on text_for, html_for and govspeak_for and it's been working fine.