Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:21:14 +0200
From: Ferdinand Soethe <sammler@soethe.net>
Message-ID: <1626072386.20050602112114@soethe.net>
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] Accepting and managing Skin Packages
In-Reply-To: <1117701065.5183.46.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <42948331.5070509@verit.de>
  <1226041790.20050601095508@soethe.net>
 <429DC0C3.9040006@verit.de>  <429DDF15.2040102@apache.org>
 <20050602054922.GA13774@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
 <1117701065.5183.46.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Thorsten Scherler wrote:

> IMO the only thing that we can and should accept is the CSS of Claudia.
> Skins ("old fashion" - the ones we have right now) are horror for
> maintainment (and there are only few that really maintain them). More so
> if they change common skin stylesheets.

I'd like to talk about 'making available' rather than 'accept' here to
make it clear that Forrest Project is not responsible or has to
maintain these skins.


But having said that, I suggest that we leave that decision up to the
people wanting to look at and use that skin? If at some point they
find that this skin does not follow Forrest's improvements anymore,
they can still opt out of using it.


> Per definition the result of a skin is a html skeleton that contains css
> markup and features. Features of skins are contracts. A skin provider
> can decide which contracts to offer (Claudia stated that they riped
> parts out of the skin). Now using this beautiful skin of her would mean
> we have to add this parts again and create a new "old fashion" skin.
> That leads to an endless circle of work on "old fashion" skins.

I don't see why we have to do any of that. Just add a short
disclaimer the way Claudia did and let people make up their own mind
about it.

> IMO we should focus to implement views and not adding more (endless)
> work with "old fashion" skins. In views Claudia would provide a
> default.fv, the default.css and a couple of new contracts (if needed,
> which can either override the common ones by providing new
> implementations of them or providing new contracts), which all are
> easily maintainable. I am -1 for dedicating any energy on "old fashion"
> skins that are in my eyes a dead end. 

Great! If that is so, then Claudia and other people wanting to use
that skin will probably go for it as soon as views is stable and
available.

Pls. try to look at it from a users point of view. People who want/need
a nice design now cannot not use views (alpha) at such an early stage
for a production site.

And if they work on tweaking pelt to look that way it will probably
take a lot more time than using or improving Claudia's skin.

So can we please not stand in the way of these people?

--
Ferdinand Soethe