https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23515

--- Comment #11 from Krinkle <[email protected]> 2011-05-18 20:13:40 UTC ---
In order to do this nicely and in a future proof I believe we need a change in
the Skin landscape.

Perhaps one of the following:

A) Skins have to provide a way to know what the IDs of elements are

For example:
* By giving them a class that all skins have to abide (ie.
class="mw-articlecontent")
* By setting a javascript variable
- wgSkinElements.articleContent='div#bodyContent';
- which all skins would set somehow

B) Move these things out of each individual skin and centralize them instead (
->getPortlets(), getFooter(), wrapArticleContent() which would output the
entire package (including the wrapping element), and no longer allow skins to
use different IDs.

C) Something else that works without having needing to have switch() statement
inside utlility functions such as addPorlet() in JavaScript. Because that is
ugly, hard to maintain and not extendable by other skins.

--

This method of passing the info to js (A) wouldn't just be used for element
ids, it could also be used to share HTML templates (ie. the HTML structure of a
portlet).

Ofcourse the issue of knowing the IDs and the structure could be avoided all
together with option B. But that would make it no longer backwards compatible.

In my opinion the ideal solution would be that skins would utilize centralized
funtionality without having to construct the HTML themselfs (convinience) and
at the same time avoiding this problem of stupid differences.

So what when a skin wants a different structure for a portlet ? Well, then it
would no longer be a portlet :D

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l

Reply via email to