I understand Adrian, thank you for sharing all this. -Bruno
2009/11/22 Adrian Crum <[email protected]>: > By the way, I really appreciate all of the work you're doing on the UI and > the visual themes! > > Something that might be helpful in your efforts would be to review the dev > list emails from January 2007 to around May of 2007. During that time I led > an effort to overhaul the markup and styles used in OFBiz, and there was a > lot of discussion about it on the mailing list as the community worked out > the details. You will see how and why things are set up the way they are. > > One of the reasons the Flat Grey theme works as well as it does is because > the entire community contributed to its development. It is scalable, > reversible, it resizes to any window size, and it has good cross-browser > support. From my perspective, it is the theme by which all others are > measured. > > If I seem a bit harsh in my response to markup or style changes, it is > because I don't want to see all of those efforts reversed or reduced. > > -Adrian > > --- On Sat, 11/21/09, Adrian Crum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Adrian Crum <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Layout Problems >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 5:19 PM >> That would be great! >> >> The pre-body section was created for the tab bar when IE 7 >> came out. The tab bar style had a negative margin to move it >> over the padding in the main content area. But IE7 would >> paint the padding over the tab bar. So I created the >> pre-body section and removed the negative margin from the >> tab bar style. I changed a few screens as an example, but so >> far no one else has worked on changing the other screens. >> >> -Adrian >> >> --- On Sat, 11/21/09, Bruno Busco <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > From: Bruno Busco <[email protected]> >> > Subject: Re: Layout Problems >> > To: [email protected] >> > Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 4:49 PM >> > Hi Adrian, >> > finally I followed your hint about the pre-body >> section. >> > I found that several screens had the TabBar in the >> pre-body >> > section so >> > I think we should change all other to follow the same >> > pattern. >> > >> > In Revision: 883020 I have moved several TabBar menus >> from >> > the body to >> > the pre-body and now the rendering is much better in >> both >> > single and >> > mul-colums layouts. >> > >> > If this is OK (may be a little adjustment is necessary >> on >> > the TabBar >> > margins to have it exactly as it was befor in other >> themes) >> > I will go >> > further changing al other screens. >> > >> > Is it OK with you? >> > >> > -Bruno >> > >> > >> > >> > 2009/11/16 Adrian Crum <[email protected]>: >> > > Bruno, >> > > >> > > Did you notice that the GlobalDecorator already >> has a >> > pre-body section? >> > > >> > > -Adrian >> > > >> > > Bruno Busco wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Adam, >> > >> I will definitively put back the "new >> feature" in >> > a different way that >> > >> does not hurt. >> > >> >> > >> The "new feature" basically is the >> application tab >> > bar at an higher >> > >> level in the HTML so that it is rendered in >> the >> > Dropping crumbs theme >> > >> (I think I should find a better name for >> this >> > theme) just below the >> > >> breadcrumb. >> > >> >> > >> It will take some time and probably some >> > discussion because I will ask >> > >> details. >> > >> I look forward to the community >> collabotation. >> > >> >> > >> -Bruno >> > >> >> > >> 2009/11/16 Adam Heath <[email protected]>: >> > >>> >> > >>> Bilgin Ibryam wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Adam Heath wrote: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>>> Developers, >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> Please be careful when >> changing >> > HTML element compounds. The recent >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>> changes to certain themes are >> breaking >> > the layout of the Flat Grey >> > >>>>> theme - which shouldn't have >> been >> > affected. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Um, huh? So, because *new* >> things >> > were done, possibly adding more >> > >>>>> features, but it broke something >> else, >> > you want to stop the new >> > >>>>> feature? Why not just fix the >> thing >> > that broke? >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> I'm a little confused now, because >> in >> > OFBiz Committers Roles and >> > >>>> Responsibilities is written this: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> *Rule #1 for a committer is the same >> as >> > for a doctor:* *first do no >> > >>>> harm*. Nothing should be committed >> that >> > breaks existing functionality >> > >>>> without replacing it either before or >> in >> > the same commit. >> > >>> >> > >>> Sure. But we are all human, and we are >> not >> > perfect. >> > >>> >> > >>> Mistakes happen, in both directions. >> If >> > someone breaks existing >> > >>> functionality, then either back out >> their >> > change, or fix the existing >> > >>> code to make it work. >> > >>> >> > >>> In this case, I think that maybe just >> backing >> > out the changes was the >> > >>> wrong approach to take. Unless they >> will >> > come back at some point, >> > >>> with whatever problems fixed that they >> > caused. >> > >>> >> > >>> ps: I haven't actually looked at the >> changes >> > in question. >> > >>> >> > >>>> Bilgin >> > >>> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > >
