IMO it's ok to have some "common reusable front end components" but they should just be helpers and the standard should be HTML and the agreed CSS classes we wish to use.
One reason is that we won't have those components for all technologies. Thanks -Vincent On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Denis, > > When we discussed the Vertical Forms Standard [1] Thomas mentioned > something about "commons tools to follow that standard (like form related > wiki macros for example)". Some considered that having macros for standard > HTML controls will just duplicate HTML language. > > One advantage of having such macros would be that for example (let's say > the macros will be defined in macros.vm) if you want to change the classes > used by the controls (like .buttonwrapper class for example), you are just > changing the macros, not all the places that call them. > > This way you could easily change what classes you assign to a button for > example from span.buttonwrapper input.button.secondary to > button.btn.btn-primary (bootstrap way - of course we will also need to > standardize the usage component: input, button, a, etc.) > > The example above refers mostly to standard HTML elements. Of course if you > want to use other types of components from different frameworks you will > need to rewrite the templates, and this always calls for a new skin. > > I thought about new skins for XWiki and since I joined the project we > mostly deprecated old skins than creating new ones. But one problem I have > is the concept of base skin. For me the base skin should be something very > minimal. > It should contain just the typography, standard controls, the grid, the > reset, anyway elements that are not layout dependent and that will work for > any skin. I'm not sure about templates, because mostly templates refer to > layout and how you arrange things and what functionality you reveal and > where, and this usually change with a new skin. Technical the base skin > should contain the Standard, the base for things that will remain the same > no matter what. Right now Colibri covers much more than that. > > And this standard is absolutely necessary also for the way we go with > extensions. We know very well that in an Open Source project, everybody > codes with his own style and having a common ground is essential from a > consistency point of view. All the applications that will be created and > published by the community members should have a common style that could > make them integrate well inside XWiki, no matter of the creator. > > So the conclusion is that for this we will need a very well documented > standard and the tools to enforce it. Not sure what this means. > > Also other things worth discussing is colorthemes variables and macros > against LESS variables and mixins. > Also the Bootstrap / LESS is also a direction bet, just like Prototype vs. > JQuery, and the solution we pick it would be great if it would be loosely > coupled. > > Thanks, > Caty > > P.S. Another discussion somehow related to extensibility is [Discussion] > Problematic ColorTheme extensibility > http://markmail.org/thread/ex6fgou6fl6vjwfr > > [1] http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/VerticalForms > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Devs, >> >> As you may have noted from a previous mail, I have given a try to skin >> XWiki differently, based on Bootstrap. There is certainly many ways to get >> it done, but IMO, building over any pre-made css solution requires an >> adaptation of the HTML generated. >> >> In the early days of XWiki, the were few places were we have HTML >> generated. Most of the html produce came from three major places: >> 1) .vm templates including macros.vm >> 2) java generated (#display()) >> 3) XWiki tech document >> >> While 2) and 3) either provide very basic markup or customizable one and >> are not so much, and 1) was fully customizable by skins, to work out a new >> skin was not too complex. >> >> Today however, the UI of XWiki has considerably increase its complexity, >> and the source of HTML has followed, added to the above 3: >> 4) XWiki and Java macros >> 5) JavaScript (ie: annotation UI, comments preview) >> >> Changing all these places has become really more painful. There is no >> central place, and a lot of hidden dependencies between UI components >> exists. Worse examples are those written in JS, that hook into the UI. >> >> I should admit that I have not a clear idea of the best way to improve >> that, but my feeling is that changing so much places simply to adapt our >> wiki skin to the "a la mode" skin solution (something that will happen >> again) is not nice. >> >> So this thread is now open for anyone to discuss the situation and for >> anyone interested to provide its input to the discussion. >> >> Looking at what I face building the UI with bootstrap, here is what I >> noticed: >> >> 1) Bootstrap customize standard tags, without any css class associated >> 2) Bootstrap provide standard css classes to skin a given kind of UI >> component >> 3) Bootstrap use these class and custom attribute to inject JS >> interactivity >> >> All these are really clean methods and work really well at building very >> simple html construct while providing nice looking and easy interface. >> >> Let's take a concrete example, to build a button, you may use either an a >> tag, an input tag, a button tag or whatever, and set it a 'btn' css class. >> You may complement it with additional 'btn-primary', 'btn-success', ... css >> classes, to choose the kind of button you really want. >> >> However, in our XWiki UI, there no single place where we construct buttons, >> we do so in some velocity macros of macros.vm, we do so in .vm of the UI, >> we also do so in javascript, and finally in some wiki documents, maybe we >> also generate some in a java component. >> All those buttons are usually built the same, with a very similar HTML, but >> there is no central place where the button markup is produced. >> >> And the same is true for most UI component. You may say we don't care, and >> CSS could solve them all, making any kind of markup look the way we want. >> But, we will loose the benefit of using existing CSS solution. And there >> are interesting benefit to that, since those solution gets customized, see >> BootsWatch for example. >> >> Therefore, it seems to me that we need something like an UI generator, so >> that when you build a application, you would simply says, I want a primary >> button here, a secondary button there, and it gets created both the way it >> should for your apps to use it, but also for the UI design we want to use. >> >> Defining a list of these UI component is not simple, but we may take >> Bootstrap as a starting point. There is in Bootstrap a large number of >> control already, that should cover many UI possibilities. >> >> How to provide that UI component to all the places we need it may be less >> obvious. For example, we need to create button from .vm, XWiki document, >> XWiki and java Macros, and even from javascript. Also defining how you >> could expect to interact with each control, from Javascript or from java on >> the server needs clarification. >> >> I have not yet googled, but there may be existing experience regarding >> these matters on other project. Not reinventing the wheel is always better. >> Your ideas are welcome. >> >> IMO, we really need that if we want our Skin 4.x to be really more usable >> for customization. >> >> WDYT ? >> >> >> -- >> Denis Gervalle >> SOFTEC sa - CEO >> eGuilde sarl - CTO >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
