Jerome Velociter wrote:
>>
>> Modified: platform/web/trunk/standard/src/main/webapp/templates/javascript.vm
>> ===================================================================
>> --- platform/web/trunk/standard/src/main/webapp/templates/javascript.vm
>> 2009-04-23 19:39:22 UTC (rev 19002)
>> +++ platform/web/trunk/standard/src/main/webapp/templates/javascript.vm
>> 2009-04-23 20:06:46 UTC (rev 19003)
>> @@ -10,6 +10,11 @@
>> ##
>> ## JS Libraries.
>> ##
>> +$xwiki.jsfx.use('js/scriptaculous/effects.js', true)
>> +$xwiki.jsfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/modalPopup.js', true)
>> +$xwiki.ssfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/modalPopup.css', true)
>> +$xwiki.jsfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/jumpToPage.js', true)
>> +$xwiki.ssfx.use('js/xwiki/widgets/jumpToPage.css', true)
>> <script type="text/javascript"
>> src="$xwiki.getSkinFile("js/prototype/prototype.js")"></script>
>> <script type="text/javascript" src="$xwiki.getSkinFile("js/xwiki/xwiki.js",
>> true)"></script>
>> <script type="text/javascript"
>> src="$xwiki.getSkinFile("js/xwiki/compatibility.js", true)"></script>
>>
>
> We should decide on which way we want to include our JS/CSS in
> templates. I'd say only with (js|ss)fx plugin is ok.
>
I don't know, this will create a stronger dependency on the plugin. Are
we 100% sure we want that?
I guess that if a sysadmin decides to remove the js plugins, then he can
also replace these calls with <script> tags, too, so I don't think that
this is a severe problem. using jsfx seems better to me, too.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
