Yes, mzingi uses it and could include it in itself instead? But then again, I’m just arguing to argue. It’s not like I had a point of view or something.
Christian From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Meller Sent: 23. februar 2009 22:17 To: [email protected] Subject: [habari-dev] Re: BluePrint On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Christian Mohn (h0bbel) <[email protected]> wrote: No, it's not a Javascript library now, is it? The point was that as long as we actively used BP in our admin section we should make it generally available to themers. Now that we don't use it anymore, that particular reason is moot. As I said, I don't think there is an online version we can just link to, and why should we? If we don't use it, we don't use it. We do use it. Until someone rewrites Mzingi to stop using it, we're arguing for absolutely no reason. I see that there are other arguments, like we should provide a css framework for themers. I agree about that, but should it be BP? Why not 960.gs? Or any of the others? Including BP in our "core" distribution seems, to me at least, to give it some kind of official Habari stamp of approval. If that's the case, we should really be eating our own dogfood and use it. Considering that we don't, well, we don't. We include jQuery, but then again we do use that. I think you vastly over-emphasize the weight a "Habari stamp of approval" would carry... What might be interesting, from a themes point of view, are which options are available to them. I think the best way to provide this to the themes would be to build example themes using different frameworks. If someone with real theming abilities would sit down and create a sample BP theme, a sample 960.gs theme, etc we could document it on the Wiki and let the themers themselves decide which framework, if any, they want to use? Doing that seems to be a bit more Habari-like than anything else. Another point is that we include BP 0.4 from the google code repository. That repo has been abandoned since, as far as I can see, the summer of 2008. Why should we be including an old outdated version from a repo that isn't maintained anymore? The latest BP version is 0.8. … Because no one has bothered to update it. Feel free... Christian From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Meller Sent: 23. februar 2009 01:51 To: [email protected] Subject: [habari-dev] Re: BluePrint The latest copy of blueprint we include was from Google Code at http://code.google.com/p/blueprintcss/. I don't know that we'd be able to include it properly directly from the Google Code SVN (ie: Mozilla requires that it have a text/css content-type), but I presume that's what we're talking about. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Sean Coates <[email protected]> wrote: > Why are we discussing a google-code hosted BP when afaik is none? BP > is > developed on github now, and I don't think you can just include it. > As for removing it, well, I don't have a strong opinion. I assumed we were talking about this: http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxlibs/documentation/ But it seems blueprint isn't there (jQuery is, though). S --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
