On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Cathy, > > You have launch a couple of not so easy threads, and probably why no one > have found enough time yet to follow up. I really hope this will change in > the upcoming days, since the skin evolution is very important aspect that > really need to be thoroughly discussed. > > As I see it, choosing between 1. "keeping the colibri look" using the Junco > skin, and 2. using a fresh look like flamingo, based on your developed > arguments, is more a question about what do we do with our current > templates, and how free are we to change them ? Could we afford and impose > a new improvement to our markups and templates, while providing enough > backward compatibility for existing extensions. > > In your Bootstrap integration thread, I develop the technical aspect around > these markup issues, showing, I hope, that we have the occasion to smoothly > evolve our skin without getting stuck by the past. Regarding the design > aspect, your Flamingo proposal is far more refreshing and appealing, > providing a more responsive look that I hope could extends our user base. > If we could implement it without extending bootstrap, allowing it to be > restyled with any bootstrap variants, it would make it a very versatile > skin. > > So, if we could target that new skin, while keeping an acceptable > compromise for existing stuff, I see no reason not to move forward. This is > not really a choice between 1) and 2), since what I propose is to use Junco > to provide a backward compatibility CSS, and for a while also a modernized > colibri skin using our existing templates, and to also evolve our > templates, using a more bootstrap based markups to produce that more > appealing Flamingo skin. So, it is more 2) than 1), since we will only > target 2) for new stuffs. > So what you are saying is that: - if someone wants a backwards compatible skin (with Colibri and with current extensions on e.x.o) should use Junco and - if someone wants a new skin (where we implement new functionality) should use Flamingo. >From your e-mail I understand that your preference goes towards Flamingo. I admit that Junco is more of a compromise solution for our problems and I've seen it as in intermediate step towards Flamingo, while still providing new functionality and making us advanced (in the shortest time possible). The issue is our development resources and I think it would be hard for us to officially maintain 2 skins. So maybe some solutions would be: A. Officially: Colibri + Junco + Flamingo - Maintain support for Colibri, but not innovate. We should support this skin for 1 year at least; - Support Junco, as in intermediary solution for Colibri and Flamingo; - Support Flamingo (new stuff). B. Officially: Colibri + Flamingo - Maintain support for Colibri, but not innovate; - Support Flamingo; - Have Junco on e.x.o as a backwards compatibility solution. C. Officially: Junco + Flamingo - Stop support for Colibri since Junco will kind of duplicate it (while adding the Bootstrap functionality); - Support Junco - Support Flamingo. These are just ideas. Thanks, Caty > > WDYT ? > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
