On 11/12/09 5:35 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 17:26, Thomas > Mortagne<[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 17:13, Vincent Massol<[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> While working on WCAG we've found that we need to hide some content so >>> that it's not displayed visually but it's used by assistive devices >>> (such as a web browser reader). >>> For example for label texts in compact forms (where we put the label >>> inside the field -e.g. the search box). >>> >>> Another example are "skip content" and "got to top" features. >>> >>> Thus I'd like to propose adding a new public CSS class called >>> "accessibility": >>> >>> .accessibility { >>> display: none >>> } >>> >>> We need a vote since it's public and would be used for example in the >>> form located in Main.Spaces. This means that all skins (ours or custom >>> skins done by users) must have it (or the label will be displayed). >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Here's my +1 >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>> PS: BTW this raises the question of public vs non public CSS classes. >> > > what do you mean? In the cleanup > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Skins/ColibriClean/colibri.css > > there is a list of general elements, like: .clearfloats, .hidden, > .invisible, .loading, .separator > but classes that absolutely needs to exists are so many :) > > there are a few classes (I think I saw one once) that are used by a skin and > not used by another, but in rest, because toucan was build on top of > albatross and colibri on top of toucan, they share mostly the same classes. > > Jerome - .clearfloats exists in colibri.css :) thank you
Then I don't recall what it was. Anyway, the private (internal) vs API (public) list of classes would allow to separate CSS classes in 2 categories : - the ones with an agreed behavior that all skins must define, and that application (extensions, etc.) developers can rely on. (like we do with hidden, buttonswrapper, clearfloats, etc.) -> those are APIs - the ones that are used to "make the skin work" and for which we allow ourselves to change their behavior, remove them, not define them in all skins, etc. -> those are private, and the extension developers must not rely on them. That's similar to public API vs. private implementation for Java components. Jerome. > >> Do we have a list somewhere? If not shouldn't we have one to let skin >>> authors know what class must absolutely exist and also to ensure we >>> don't use non public classes in document content or in templates (non >>> skin templates)? >> >> +1 we should have a documented list of the required classes and what >> us expected from theses classes >> > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
