Due to the way CSS works, if I have to define new properties for the nav-bar say, then I first have to UNDO all of the changes made by the CSS files loaded by default, and then define the CSS properties the way I want them to. ... A simple option that controls inclusion of default CSS files should fix the problem.
I see 2 options here: 1) We *do not* provide a css implementation for a specific contract nor the basic.css but provide a css stylesheet for all possible contracts (e.g. default.css) and basic elements.
+1
2) We keep the current implementation.
1) will save compilation time. 2) gives css controll to the contract authors. What are our preferences on that?
Why do contract authors want CSS control? With our focus on separation of content from presentation, I think the user should have complete control over how content is rendered. If the contract authors have a "preferred default" CSS spec, we can just include it in default.css
I agree, the contract author should not be concerned with the CSS, just as a plugin author is not concerned with the skin/view.
If no CSS is defined in the view then *no* css will be linked in the presentation.
I don't think this is a very good idea. First users of forrest are often novices, and by default, we want to output a slick-looking site. We've already heard reports of people turning away from Forrest because none of the default skins were striking. So we *definitely* want a nice looking default implementation, at the same time making it easy for users to use their own CSS from scratch.
+1 It's great to see someone helping him out, he's been alone in skinning section area for too long.
*Point 2 - css theming* Have a look at this document and search for "theming": "The view is creating the html-skelleton that is used for theming. Themes are view dependent but e.g. you can write one theme for x view derivatives. Theming adds colors and general appearance info. In html it's css files for example, or the skinconf color information."
So my understanding is that we might want to retain things like "colors" across various views (HTML, PDF etc?) which is why specifying colors in skinconf is a good idea since doing colors in CSS only would restrict them to XHTML output. Or did I miss something? If thats the case, it sounds fine to me.
The idea (having point 1 in mind) should be to have 2 layers for the theming. One adds the general appearance (default.css) the other enables color information (default.color.css).
Lets avoid putting in two "default" CSS files. If we need to include color specs in CSS as well (apart from skinconf), lets just do it in default.css itself. IMHO, having something like default.color.css just makes things more confusing.
Does my comment regarding colour groups (in original thread) have anything to do with this?
Ross
