Changed Fragment links to Anchor links, however it's is slighty confusing what the right name for the thing is.
According to w3.org: "Some URIs refer to a location within a resource. This kind of URI ends with "#" followed by an anchor identifier (called the fragment identifier)." - http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/intro.html#fragment-uri
After doing some research in the most common used name for the #some-link identifier I came to the conclusion that most of the time (about 70% on StackOverflow/BlogArticles/Interwebz) Anchor-link was the term used to describe the identifier. Imho, Anchor is the prefered term for the identifier.
Is it acceptable to change fragment to anchor, since it seems more used?
- Removed duplicated content from page-type-templates (was more or less a variation of the content in templates.md)
- Removed built-in page-controls, which was a bit of a dumping ground for unconnected topics.
Moved the majority to page-type-templates
- Removed all recipes from "sitetree" docs, since they were outdated or hacky (like grouping of records, or implementing custom *children() method on subclasses)
- Added pagination, escaping, base_tag, CurrentMember to template docs
- Removed default_parent docs from SiteTree, as this setting doesn't have any effect looking at core
