Regarding GIFs (a bit off topic). The main advantage GIFs provide is animation. (transparency is already done by regular PNG).
Check out APNG (Animated PNG). Some samples are at http://animatedpng.com/index.php/category/samples/ I tested some APNGs from the samples (.png extensions) and they run well on Linux and Vista, so it seems to have good support. This could be a nice alternative to the evil GIFs. Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > Jerome Velociter wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> Yesterday, Vincent introduced a "Modules" section on code.xwiki.org to >> host XWiki components documentation. From that we had a conversation on >> IRC about terminology of categories on code.xwiki.org. My observation >> was that we have some applications that are not really such since they >> do not offer features to users, but only to developers. Take the date >> picker application >> (http://code.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Applications/DatePickerApplication) >> : it is not self-standing, this is just for developers that needs a date >> picker in their apps. I proposed we add an "Extensions" category that >> would host Skin eXtensions (JSX and SSX) and applications such as the >> datepicker would fit in there. But as Vincent remarked, we already have >> an extension category for "an application or script that integrates or >> interacts with XWiki". In the end, I'll come here with Vincent's idea of >> merging such extensions with plugins, and then have the following >> categories : >> >> * Plugins: A plugin is everything that brings new functionality to the >> wiki, but that does not necessarily expose it to end users. There will >> be two main kinds of plugins: Front-end plugins (that will mostly come >> under the form of SX), as the date picker will be for example, and >> Back-end plugins, which can be of various form, such as an old fashioned >> xwiki plugin (grand'ma style), or a xwiki component with a velocity >> bridge, etc. To sum up, plugins bring *functionalities to developers*. >> >> * Applications: An application will stay what it is today : something an >> administrator can install on its wiki and that provides functionality to >> end-users, directly visible/exploitable without the need of more >> programming. This mean a SX that do such is an application, for instance >> this is how the Ratings application >> (http://svn.xwiki.org/svnroot/xwiki/sandbox/xwiki-application-ratings/) >> is made. To sum up, applications bring *functionalities to the end users*. >> >> Conclusions: Skin eXtensions will remain only a technical term to >> designate what they are as platform feature. This is for us, the >> knowledgeable gurus ; on code.xwiki.org we will offer only plugins and >> applications. >> >> As for icons to represent those two ideas (both on code.xwiki.org and in >> the future in XE) - since this is what matters in the end, icons :) - I >> propose we use application.gif for Applications and plugin.gif for >> Plugins from the silk set. Pretty straightforward, eh ;) >> >> WDYT ? >> > > From a user perspective, having less names and categories is good. > However, given that so many different types of things will go under > "plugins", it will be more confusing IMO. There's a huge difference > between a calendar sx and a kerberos auth class, or the SVG plugin, or > the localization component. > > Another name I've been suggesting for a while for interface extensions > that add new components is, well, "UI components". > > And another thing I just noticed: we provide GIFs?! GIFs are evil. GIFs > are deprecated. GIFs are very limited. It's true that the Burn All Gifs > campaign was started a very long time ago, but it is still valid. > http://burnallgifs.org/archives/ > > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
