Rather than putting these under separate angular and react folders should we do one playground with both frameworks? Structure:

static
└── usage
    └── v9
        └── navigation
            ├── angular
            │   ├── app_component_html.md
            │   ├── app_component_ts.md
            │   ├── app_routes_ts.md
            │   ├── dashboard_page_component_html.md
            │   ├── dashboard_page_component_ts.md
            │   ├── example_component_html.md
            │   ├── example_component_ts.md
            │   ├── item_detail_page_component_html.md
            │   ├── item_detail_page_component_ts.md
            │   ├── settings_page_component_html.md
            │   └── settings_page_component_ts.md
            ├── react
            │   ├── dashboard_page_tsx.md
            │   ├── item_detail_page_tsx.md
            │   ├── main_tsx.md
            │   └── settings_page_tsx.md    
            ├── demo.html
            └── index.md

This would allow us to add a JavaScript and Vue one if we would like.

So the reason was we couldn't previously is because then the React playground would show the Angular playground by default (unless you happened to have selected React from a component view before, in which case Angular would have shown React by default), which is a bad UX.

This inspired me to fix this, though, so in this commit (de72886) I added support for default frameworks and made the React and Angular pages use it, most of the work for combining them was done in this commit though (58873e4)

Nice! What if we had two separate index.md files and just imported the one we wanted? Right now it shows both are enabled but you can't click on the other one:

Welp, that was a bug. Fixed that here: 91f7811

I actually like one unified playground where they can swap between the two if they want to see how it works in other frameworks for comparison

Here is what I was thinking, feel free to edit: 785d345

Ohh, I was misunderstanding. Nice, that's awesome!

I don't understand why ionPage is now required. We have never recommended adding this as a property and it is not added to any of the playgrounds.

It's never been recommended because the docs have been known to be wrongly recommending wrapping IonRouterOutlet in IonPages for several years and nobody has fixed it (note the age of the issue this resolves).

Using the ionPage prop on the router outlet directly benefits mostly nested routes (it's required by them, technically). When you have an outlet containing routes and one of those routes renders another outlet, like in a tab layout, the inner outlet needs to know about and be able to participate in the outer outlet's page transitions. Setting the prop makes the inner outlet itself the animatable page element, so the outer StackManager can transition it properly.

It's generally best to do this everywhere so you don't have to remember to do it in the special nested routing edge cases, and that will also be the case in RR6.