forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shaun Evans" <>
Subject RE: [Skins] Leather-dev vs. scale-dev
Date Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:55:08 GMT
> > I too am interested in this approach. For one thing, I 
> believe it makes 
> > it possible to place search outside of branding (e.g., under nav?)
> > 
> > +------------------------+---------+
> > | branding banner stuff  | search  |
> > +---------+--------------+---------+
> > |   nav   |                        |
> > |---------|                        |
> > ...
> > 
> > or even as does its thing:
> > 
> > +----------------------------------+
> > |      branding banner stuff       |
> > +---------+------------------------+
> > |   nav   |                        |
> > |---------|                        |
> > |  search |                        |
> > |---------|                        |
> > ...
> > 
> > This seems more possible if search is not a child of branding.
> > 
> Yeah, that is actually problem. Normally you have to create two 
> different html outputs for design reason.
> Now we are looking for a way not to do that anymore.

I could do this easily: it's just that if we decide to put the search
box outside of branding, there's no user-accessible option of changing
it back to inside the branding outside of two things:
   a) Edit the CSS to position:absolute it into position (which looks
bad in anything other than the browser I design it for, and it floats),
   b) Edit the XSL to move it into the desired physical position.

Theoretically, there are an unlimited number of positions where the
search box can reside, but the problem is that CSS cannot position them
(position:absolute or position:relative will always float an object).
I'm sure you people can think of something clever to put in skinconf.xml
that will resemble <search position="nav" /> and position it somewhere,
but I don't know enough about it to be able to edit it in. This could
cause debate: I think that the search box should be inside branding
simply because it _visually_ belongs there. I think that the tabs should
be there too.

You have said that you would like the tree to look like:


But I don't see why. I'm sure you have an explanation but I view the
most important aspect of a skin as it's 'whoa-factor' effect on the
viewer, the second most important bit being the 'whoa-factor' effect on
the developer when they see the capabilities of the skin. The latest
version of the skin, which I am about to put into JIRA, acheives both of
these and satisfies us by following the naming conventions (in contrast
with the structure conventions).

> BTW, my offer of testing theses skin developments on Mac OS 
> X stands. Of 
> > course, to minimize my time spent figuring out version and 
> build issues, 
> > I'm hoping someone will place these test 'sites' on a web 
> server I can 
> > access. That way, it'll take a minimal mount of time to 
> test, and others 
> > can test and be assured that everyone is testing the 
> *exact* same 'sites'.
> > 
> I will place it on my apache webspace as soon it is added to jira.

A mini-changelog in scale-dev:
	Fixed bug of <hr />, the siteinfo is always after the rest of
the page now.
	Fixed discolouration bug in IE so the header matches the bg of
the forrest logo.
	Added a template, new.css, which is for new skins to be made
	Big change: skin now follows leather naming conventions

Despite the new change to leather naming conventions, the CSS files are
still not fully compatible with the real leather-dev.

Instead of rendering the default seed and putting it in your webspace,
please could you use the website (It is a better
example of all the capabilities)?

Posting to JIRA now, please could an admin delete the old file.


View raw message