On 26 Apr 2003 14:43:35 +0200, Uwe Pross wrote:
> 
> On 26 Apr 2003 at 00:37:55 +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> 
> > BTW, I think "layout" is not the best term for what it does. Maybe
> > "skin", "view" or "look" (other names: "theme", "design",
> > "looknfeel").
> 
> Okay, I am not a native english speaker so some terms I  have  choosen
> might  be not selected by other people. However, from your suggestions
> I would like "theme" at most since relates to fvwm-theme. From  a  web
> "design"  view  the  term  "design" might be most appropriate. I would
> like to leave it up to you.

Do you mean I am a native English speaker? :)

Ok, if I should choose, I think the term "web theme" is good.
Or "theme" for short.

> > I think the navigation methods may be (if possible of course) moved to
> > separate elements. Like:
> > 
> >   layout/navigation/pager.inc
> >   layout/navigation/parent_list.inc
> >   layout/navigation/void.inc  # does not exist in the new version
> >   layout/navigation/menus.inc  # does not exist yet
> > 
> > How about to separate the decoration methods too:
> > 
> >   layout/decor/window.inc  # there is also the actual image/color theme
> >   layout/decor/border.inc  # there is also the actual image/color theme
> >   layout/decor/void.inc
> > 
> > This way, the current layout=default consists of navigation=pager and
> > decor=window, layout=plain consists of navigation=parent_list (or void)
> > and decor=void.
> > 
> > This is just a working suggestion without all details.
> 
> The idea is good - but the current class concept needs to be changed a
> little  bit.  As  far  as I know php does not support deriving a class
> from more than one base class. So the concept you suggest is more like
> a  construction kid where one collects all items one needs in a layout
> (theme) description. 
> If I am thinking about it this make the class  concept  not  necessary
> anymore.  We  could  place function descriptions in separate files and
> include them in the  layout  files.  So  we  don't  need  to  descripe
> function  more  than one time and changing a function would affect all
> layouts. 

I didn't mean the class concept is bad. I just don't have a time to think
about the exact code design right now. I hope you have more time to think
about this, i.e. how to make creation of new web themes easy. It may be
good (or bad) to have subclassed themes or subclassed navigations/pagers.

> Another thing  is  that  the  web  files  currently  have  no  license
> statement in it. With the modular function file concept the frame work
> becomes quite usable. 
> I would like to put them under GPL like fvwm.  Any  disagrees?  To  do
> this  is  it  necessary  to  put the GNU statement in each php and inc
> file? 

I think placing the statement in one/two central .inc files that are
included by all .php is more than enough. Having .php files themselves
small (only html, no static text) would be nice.

Regards,
Mikhael.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to