Hi Denis/All, On 22 Feb 2014 at 23:57:15, Denis Gervalle ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
> Hi Cathy, > > To integrate bootstrap with XWiki, several approaches has been investigated: > > A. Jerome, with the Lyrebird skin, has adapted the bootstrap CSS to the > current XWiki markup and templates > B. Myself, with the Bluebird skin, has adapted the XWiki templates to the > bootstrap CSS to partially target the Flamingo skin look. > C. You, Cathy, with the Junco skin, has bridge the bootstrap CSS to adapt > it to the XWiki markup and templates > > The inconvenience with A. was the inability to use any of the existing > bootstrap variations available, and to follow the bootstrap evolution > easily. So, A is no go for me. > The inconvenience with B. is that it require the whole XWiki markup to be > adapted, including those produced by existing extensions, providing no > compatibility with the past. I think there’s a way out of this. I can imagine at least 2 options: 1) Since each skin is allowed to have its own templates so it would be possible to move the current templates in the colibri skin’s directory for example and start fresh with some new templates. Then once we have the new skin, deprecate colibri if we don’t want to maintain 2 skins but continue to make it available through extensions.xwiki.org 2) Package the current templates in a legacy zip and allow users to install it if they need backward compatibility. Variation to this: make it configurable for XWiki to choose which template dir to use through a configuration option (right now it looks in templates/ AFAIK). The idea would be to allow having several templates directories to support backward compatibility. > The inconvenience with C. is that it require any bootstrap variation to be > "recompiled" (using less) to be adapted. > > My personal idea, that I have defended during the last seminar, is that we > should target a state where we are free to change the HTML markup without > breaking existing extensions, and the way I propose to do so was to provide > more abstraction then we have currently, by providing XWiki macro to > generate most of the HTML needed. From the discussion we had, I have > understand that reaching that point will be not easy, and could be an > unreachable dream, but I am still convinced it could be achieved for a lot > of simple applications, so most of them. > > What I would find a very annoying situation, is that we refrain to change > our skin, and our html markup, simply to keep the compatibility with the > past. The currently generated markup is sometime over complex, and followed > our own rules. I see the bootstrap integration as the occasion to choose a > more popular html markup style, that is already widely used on the net, and > that could be easily followed by newcomers. Bootstrap propose to use a very > semantic html markup while providing a complete set of UI features. It is a > far more clean and simple HTML than we have currently IMO. Also, using a > purely bootstrap based solution, without any adaptation, open us to the > wide range of bootstrap variation, either paid or free. > > Based on our previous experiences, I have the feeling that we have all what > we need to get the best of both worlds, and migrate smoothly. We may use > method C. (Junco) to provide a good compatibility level for existing > extension and to be upgraded templates, while we could use method B. to > evolve our skin and simplify our markup. And we may also improve at the > same time, our feature that prevent us to manually generate the HTML. > > Regarding the JS aspect, Louis-Marie is perfectly right, we have to vote > the deprecation of Prototype.js and the usage of JQuery as our default JS > framework. I am confident we could reach a consensus on that point, and for > those not yet convince, I remind you this post by Sam Stephenson the > creator of Prototype.js initially mentionned by Jean-Vincent: > > http://sstephenson.us/posts/you-are-not-your-code > > So I invite you to open an independent thread for that vote. Yes please open a vote on this. Thanks -Vincent > Thanks, > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Joshua Marks wrote: > > > Curriki geometry is using bookstrap. http://www.currikigeometry.org/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: devs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Guillaume > > "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau > > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:37 AM > > To: XWiki Developers > > Subject: Re: [xwiki-devs] [Discussion][Skin] Bootstrap integration inside > > platform > > > > Bootstrap is a good choice because: > > 1/ it is well-known > > 2/ it provides a nice grid-system (good for the responsiveness) 3/ it offer > > components that developers can re-use > > > > But theses components uses jQuery, and no-choice have been made yet about > > the new javascript framework we should use. > > > > Louis-Marie > > > > > > 2014-01-28 13:14 GMT+01:00 Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) : > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > As part of the 6.0 Roadmap we have as entry the creation/integration > > > of a new Skin inside XWiki. > > > > > > Currently there are 2 proposals for the new skin: > > > Flamingo http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Skin4x > > > Junco http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/JuncoSkin > > > > > > Both proposals are done using Twitter's Bootstrap framework ( > > > http://getbootstrap.com). > > > > > > This thread's purpose is to discuss possible problems we might face by > > > integrating Bootstrap inside platform. You can find the investigation > > > page at > > > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/BootstrapIntegration > > > > > > Besides the already mentioned problems I would want to know the > > > community's opinion about this framework. Have you worked with it? Do > > > you think we should consider some alternatives? See some other > > > frameworks at > > > http://usablica.github.io/front-end-frameworks/compare.html > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
