Hi Caty, Thanks for your answer
2014-07-16 11:44 GMT+02:00 Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]>: > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > I'm thinking about this topic for weeks, and it is difficult to me to > make > > a choice, simply because I always focus on drawbacks, which all proposals > > have. There is no perfect choice here. But there is probably a most > > realistic one. > > > > My proposal is the following: > > > > - We still propose some standards like the Vertical Align Form ( > > http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/VerticalForms ). > Because > > we like it. > > > > Another reason why I prefer the .xform is the usage of dl-dt-dd in its > structure. This means that if the CSS is disabled it fallback on the > browser defaults (compared to BS usage of simple divs). Supporting > CSS-disable or JS-disable use cases is a topic that we can discuss if we > still want to support. > > > > - We still propose some of our own CSS classes because we need them. > > > > We have some classes that are used everywhere > http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/SpecialCSSClasses like > (.suggestUsers, .loading, etc). Again we can discuss if we want to keep > them and integrate them in our standard or if we should deprecate them (for > some classes we have a BS replacement, some like .withTip are deprecated by > placeholders, but we still might have some classes that are just XWiki > specific). > > > > > > - People are allowed to use any Bootstrap feature they want. They are > > packaged with Flamingo. > > > > We cannot force anyone to use something that they don't want, the issue is > what we recommend. If we recommend a specific version of Bootstrap and > people start using it, we need to be careful on what solutions we provide > if we upgrade Bootstrap to another version. > > > > - When we upgrade to a new version of Bootstrap, it's the responsibility > of > > the developers to fix their applications if they are broken. > > > > Another solution would be froze a specific BS version as our standard, but > I don't think it's desired. Assuring ourselves backwards compatibility for > a framework that doesn't care about it is not a solution either. > An improvement at least would be the extensions creators to mention on > which XWiki version they build their extension on, in order for us to > determine the BS version they used. > > > > - We need to update > > http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/FrontendResources > > > > - The theme Application will be skin-dependent (because of the preview), > > and because some Theme variables have sense only on the CSS framework we > > use in the skin. Moreover, some color themes are good looking on some > skins > > and ugly on some others. > > > > As I said in a previous mail, we can have a common base, shared by both > Colibri, Flamingo or any other future skin, and we can have skin-dependent > variables. > > > > > > Example: here a color theme > > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/FlamingoColorTheme > > - screenshot on Flamingo: > > > > > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Extension/FlamingoColorTheme/flamingoPreview61M2.png > > -> good looking > > - screenshot on Colibri: > > http://tof.canardpc.com/view/903b37a6-64c8-4ccd-9a02-d34fc1027266.jpg > > -> ugly > > > > > It might not look perfect but at least they are compatible. > > But it won't always be. For example, I have proposed to introduce a way to put LESS code in a Color Theme, to easily integrate a third-party Bootstrap Theme (see: http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/cvfvbrldneg67lmf ). It is sure that these color themes won't work at all with Colibri... > > > > It does not make sense to propose that same color theme for both skins. > > > > I do NOT propose: > > - to add a namespace to the Bootstrap classes, because it implies to > modify > > the bootstrap sources (JavaScript + LESS code), which must be maintained > > each time we upgrade to a new minor version of Bootstrap. > > > > I agree. Too much work and except the separation advantage, it increased > the time you need to use it, the size of the file, etc. > > > > - to create our standards, simply because it is the business of > Bootstrap, > > and we do not have the manpower to do the same thing as well. > > > > We still need to define our xwiki-specific things, but sure we shouldn't > reinvent the wheel for everything. > > > > > > The drawback of this solution is that it might be broken if Bootstrap > > breaks the retro-compatibility in the next versions. > > > > We kind of need to take a leap of faith. If Bootstrap will break everything > for us, we can: > - create a new skin :) that uses another framework that cares about > backwards compatibility or write our own standard; > - the extensions could use a ssx with the correct BS version that they were > created on or use an import to the needed version; > - we might need to froze a specific BS version in our platform or rewrite > our code to match the new BS version or another framework. > > > > > > > > That is my thoughts. I think it is important to all agree on this, > because > > we would like to have the Flamingo Theme Application for 6.2. > > > > As you said there is no perfect solution and having a third-party entity > there is no way we can vouch for their actions or assure a perfect > backwards compatibility. > > Flamingo is still not a clean skin and again it builds up on our old > templates structure and still assures backwards compatibility as well as it > can. But at least is a step further. Depending on the success of this skin, > we can decide in the new future skin what path to take and maybe we can > find solutions to provide multiple supported skins. > > Thanks, > Caty > > > > > > Thanks, > > Guillaume > > > > > > 2014-07-02 15:19 GMT+02:00 Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < > > [email protected]>: > > > > > Hi guys. > > > > > > I am starting this thread to talk about UI conventions that we should > > > recommend to every developer who want to write an application in XWiki. > > > > > > Currently, we have some standards (see > > > http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/FrontendResources) > and > > > we need to update this documentation since it is still speaking about > > > PrototypeJS and Bootstrap is not even mentioned. I think it is the time > > to > > > think about what these conventions should be now. > > > > > > With Vincent and Caty, we have thought about it and our ideas are > written > > > there: http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/UIStandards > > > > > > I let you read this design page and express your ideas. I need your > > > opinion to know how I should implement the (color) theme application > for > > > Flamingo. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Guillaume > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > Thanks, Guillaume _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
