On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:03:46AM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Authors can't modify /pub/css/local.css, but they will be able to
modify a site header page if Proposal #2 takes effect.
But anywhere, users won't be able to re-define styles, as local.css
comes last when loaded by pmwiki,
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:41:12PM -0700, H. Fox wrote:
On 6/19/07, Martin Fick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- H. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can conditional markup be put a site-wide header
that achieves
Look for a page named GroupHeader in
Em Terça 19 Junho 2007 18:13, H. Fox escreveu:
On 6/19/07, Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H. Fox wrote:
On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess we can leave
the existing implementation alone, and have all sites
customize to whatever they wish as recipes.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:55:30AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:41:12PM -0700, H. Fox wrote:
--- H. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can conditional markup be put a site-wide header
that achieves
Look for a
On 6/19/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:41:12PM -0700, H. Fox wrote:
On 6/19/07, Martin Fick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- H. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can conditional markup be put a site-wide header
that achieves
Look for a page
On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Site wide styles will not be honored , it doesn't matter where you put it
(Group|Default|Site)Header, because it can be overridden by styles defined
within the page.
I don't know what you mean by being honored, but sitewide wikistyles
Em Quarta 20 Junho 2007 13:40, você escreveu:
On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Site wide styles will not be honored , it doesn't matter where you put
it (Group|Default|Site)Header, because it can be overridden by styles
defined within the page.
I don't know what you
Em Quinta 21 Junho 2007 01:03, você escreveu:
What I really mean is this , why have a SiteAdmin.SiteHeader (Keep it
inside SiteAdmin) if security is not important ...
Maybe because there is no better place to put it.
CarlosAB
___
pmwiki-users
--- H. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Option 1: A page that acts as a fallback
GroupHeader when a group doesn't have one.
In this scenario, when viewing a page, we
first look for a page named GroupHeader in
the current group,
On 6/19/07, Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H. Fox wrote:
On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess we can leave
the existing implementation alone, and have all sites
customize to whatever they wish as recipes.
FWIW I would like to see it in the core, mainly as a
On 6/19/07, Martin Fick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- H. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can conditional markup be put a site-wide header
that achieves
Look for a page named GroupHeader in the
current group, if that exists we use it,
otherwise use fallback markup.
Would this
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:41:12PM -0700, H. Fox wrote:
On 6/19/07, Martin Fick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- H. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can conditional markup be put a site-wide header
that achieves
Look for a page named GroupHeader in the
current group, if that exists we
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:58:46AM -0700, Martin Fick wrote:
While the directive may no longer work as a
suppressor, certainly similar pagevariable base
solutions could achieve this, couldn't they?
(:if expr exists {$Group}.GroupHeader equal
{$:nogroupheader} :)
(:include
On 6/17/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Site.DefaultGroupHeader
- to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
This has some merit, instead of AllGroupHeader.
Please, no. If original suggestion to include AllGroupHeader or
SiteHeader in the core has anything in
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Roman wrote:
On 6/17/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Site.DefaultGroupHeader
- to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
This has some merit, instead of AllGroupHeader.
Please, no. If original suggestion to include AllGroupHeader or
David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/15/2007 5:16 PM
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Dominique Faure wrote:
On 6/15/07, Hans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
tied to the (:nogroupheader:). That might
Having combed through the recent message traffic, I see no clear
consensus. Is there a PITS where the various options can be listed and
voted/commented upon? There appears to be interest in _some_ site-wide
group (I join that crowd). However, the obvious problem lies in how it
is named.
There is
Thanks Ben,
I was about to post something similar. There appears to be confusion
about what this page is supposed to do, which is
reflected in the proposed names.
Name What it seems to do?
DefaultGroupHeader -- A page to be used as group header when there
is
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:15:56AM +0200, Roman wrote:
On 6/17/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Site.DefaultGroupHeader
- to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
This has some merit, instead of AllGroupHeader.
Please, no. If original suggestion to
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:56:11AM -0400, David Spitzley wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Dominique Faure wrote:
On 6/15/07, Hans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
tied to the
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, David Spitzley wrote:
Any reason that the name couldn't be set as a config file variable?
I'm sure it'll be a variable. We're discussing the default name.
/C
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:15:56AM +0200, Roman wrote:
On 6/17/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Site.DefaultGroupHeader
- to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
This has some merit, instead of AllGroupHeader.
Please, no. If original
On 6/15/07, Scott Connard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
core distribution, instead of being a
recipe/configuration change as it is now.
I
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:00:06AM -0400, Ben Wilson wrote:
Having combed through the recent message traffic, I see no clear
consensus. Is there a PITS where the various options can be listed and
voted/commented upon? There appears to be interest in _some_ site-wide
group (I join that crowd).
FWIW, this can be taken to an extreme, as I have done ('cause I'm
extreme I guess grin). See
http://parkcommons.ca/wiki/wiki.php?n=Help-Documentation.BrowserPageLayout.
I have the page laid out into 12 sections, many of which have both
defaults (fallbacks in Pm terminology) and over-rides
Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/18/2007 2:54 PM
Option 1: A page that acts as a fallback GroupHeader when
a group doesn't have one. In this scenario, when viewing a page,
we first look for a page named GroupHeader in the current group,
if that exists we use it, otherwise we use the
Being as it's easy enough to add a skin section for something like an
allgroupheader, I'm not really convinced it needs to be in core. Seems
it should go in the skins, like it already does.
Just my 2 cents. I already have something like this in my skin so it's
unlikely I would use it either way.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:20:52PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
Being as it's easy enough to add a skin section for something like an
allgroupheader, I'm not really convinced it needs to be in core. Seems
it should go in the skins, like it already does.
Note that having a header in a skin is not
On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:20:52PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
Being as it's easy enough to add a skin section for something like an
allgroupheader, I'm not really convinced it needs to be in core. Seems
it should go in the skins, like it
Em Segunda 18 Junho 2007 18:25, Patrick R. Michaud escreveu:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:20:52PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
Being as it's easy enough to add a skin section for something like an
allgroupheader, I'm not really convinced it needs to be in core. Seems
it should go in the skins,
On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we introduce a separate (:nositeheader:) directive, then
there's a question (and potential confusion) as to the sequence
of processing -- should a group be able to suppress the site-wide
header with (:nositeheader:), or should the
On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Option 1: A page that acts as a fallback GroupHeader when
a group doesn't have one. In this scenario, when viewing a page,
we first look for a page named GroupHeader in the current group,
if that exists we use it, otherwise we use the
--- Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Option 1: A page that acts as a fallback
GroupHeader when
a group doesn't have one. In this scenario, when
viewing a page,
we first look for a page named GroupHeader in the
current group,
if that exists we use it, otherwise we use the
Em Segunda 18 Junho 2007 19:33, Martin Fick escreveu:
Don't get me wrong, I like groups, but it often seems
that they need customization (look at all the special
site organizational recipes), why not just make them
customizations in the first place? I realize that
this is BIG change with
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:33:26PM -0700, Martin Fick wrote:
--- Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Option 1: A page that acts as a fallback
GroupHeader when a group doesn't have one.
In this scenario, when viewing a page, we first
look for a page named GroupHeader in the
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:32:44PM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Em Segunda 18 Junho 2007 19:33, Martin Fick escreveu:
Don't get me wrong, I like groups, but it often seems
that they need customization (look at all the special
site organizational recipes), why not just make them
On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess we can leave
the existing implementation alone, and have all sites
customize to whatever they wish as recipes.
FWIW I would like to see it in the core, mainly as a place for
sitewide wikistyles. For (just one) example, it's a
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 11:06:45AM -0500, Jon Haupt wrote:
On 6/15/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:22:54AM +1000, Kathryn Andersen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:32:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Tegan Dowling wrote:
Yes, Site.SiteHeader would be confusing. In fact, when you first posted
this, I thought you were adding something to or renaming the banner
area, where the logo is. I would not expect a SiteHeader page's content
to be automagically inserted at the
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 08:14:47PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, since this can of worms is already open, I'll throw out some more
or less crazy suggestions (that may *not* be internally consistent!):
Wiki.* or ThisWiki.*
- Using 'Wiki' instead of 'Site'... (sigh,
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 08:14:47PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, since this can of worms is already open, I'll throw out some more
or less crazy suggestions (that may *not* be internally consistent!):
Wiki.* or ThisWiki.*
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:06:35PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 08:14:47PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Site.DefaultGroupHeader
- to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
This has some merit, instead of AllGroupHeader.
I like this much better -- it
On Jun 17, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Kathryn Andersen wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:06:35PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 08:14:47PM +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Site.DefaultGroupHeader
- to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
This has some merit,
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
would also prefer Site.SiteHeader.
Part of the advantage
On 6/15/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:22:54AM +1000, Kathryn Andersen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:32:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
would also prefer Site.SiteHeader.
Part of the advantage of AllGroupHeader is
On Saturday 16 June 2007, Sandy wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
would also prefer Site.SiteHeader.
Saturday, June 16, 2007, 7:58:49 PM, Sandy wrote:
I'd expect Site.SiteHeader to have stuff that's currently part of the
skin, and as such not easy to suppress. (Depending on one's view of skin
vs content.)
I have been using Site.PageHeader and Site.PageFooter
in Gemini, FixFlow and Triad
Hans wrote:
Saturday, June 16, 2007, 7:58:49 PM, Sandy wrote:
I'd expect Site.SiteHeader to have stuff that's currently part of the
skin, and as such not easy to suppress. (Depending on one's view of skin
vs content.)
GroupHeader is in a way already a misnomer, as it defines the
Hans wrote:
Saturday, June 16, 2007, 9:47:17 PM, kjettil wrote:
Perhaps an additional proposal:
Site.SiteHeader may be used as an alternative for GroupHeader:
if there is no GroupHeader page in a group, and there is
a Site.SiteHeader page, then that page gets used. If there is a
In order to push 2.2.0 past beta into a stable release series,
I'm going to write a series of short messages to the mailing
list outlining individual features or changes that are left
to be made, to invite commentary. Each such message will
have 2.2.0: in the subject line, as this one does.
--- Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
core distribution, instead of being a
recipe/configuration change as it is now. This
would mean that by default every group would add
Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
tied to the (:nogroupheader:). That might argue in
favor of Site.AllGroupHeader instead (and there's
precedent with respect to Site.AllRecentChanges).
It also increases the
On Friday 15 June 2007 12:22:55 pm Hans wrote:
Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
tied to the (:nogroupheader:). That might argue in
favor of Site.AllGroupHeader instead (and there's
precedent with respect to
On 6/15/07, Hans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
tied to the (:nogroupheader:). That might argue in
favor of Site.AllGroupHeader instead (and there's
precedent with respect to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Dominique Faure wrote:
On 6/15/07, Hans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
tied to the (:nogroupheader:). That might argue in
favor of Site.AllGroupHeader instead (and
+1 for Site.SiteHeader.
The Editor wrote:
On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Dominique Faure wrote:
On 6/15/07, Hans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:),
I prefer Site.SiteHeader - it's more intuitive. I don't see any
problem with renaming existing AllGroupHeader.
Roman
___
pmwiki-users mailing list
pmwiki-users@pmichaud.com
http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
would also prefer Site.SiteHeader.
Part of the advantage of AllGroupHeader is that it makes it
clearer
On 6/15/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
would also prefer Site.SiteHeader.
Part of the
On 6/15/07, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
would also prefer Site.SiteHeader.
Part of the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:32:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
core distribution, instead of being a recipe/configuration
change as it is now. This would mean that by default
every
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:22:54AM +1000, Kathryn Andersen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:32:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
core distribution, instead of being a
--- Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
core distribution, instead of being a
recipe/configuration change as it is now. This
would mean that by default every group would add
the
Just to say, a) I like the approach, and b) this feature has my vote.
Many thanks
Simon
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
In order to push 2.2.0 past beta into a stable release series,
I'm going to write a series of short messages to the mailing
list outlining individual features or changes that are
65 matches
Mail list logo
