1 Mar
2013
1 Mar
'13
2:30 p.m.
On Mar 1, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean <jv(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
That's exactly why we need 1) :)
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi,
Like Vincent, I do not really think we have thoroughly worked
our templates. IMO, templates should not be considered a good base for
implementing UI extension point blindly.
Currently templates were closely linked with our distributed skin. When we
have introduce Colibri, new templates were added, especially to support the
new content menu for example, and other were ignored, left over since no
more useful. Do you consider UI extension point to be closely linked with
our skin ? What would happen when we implement the bootstrap based skin ?
When I look at the list of UIXP I pasted I don't see it closely
related to a specific skin.
Some names are not perfect, but again I don't think we can afford
renaming them (because of our skin overriding mechanism).
What problem do you foresee with a bootstrap based skin ? Would it be
difficult to keep current template names ?
Just think about the proposal from Cathy, there
is no more left panels...
Does the fact that the proposal have a single panel in the left column
means that we should consider dropping the panel feature ?
but an applications panel or whatever, how do you
expect to support
platform.template.leftpanels.top, platform.template.leftpanels.bottom, what
would be there meaning ?
We could drop leftpanels.vm and rightpanels.vm and make the panel app
hook itself to platform.template.endpage.top.
For sure doing 1) is harder, but creating truly
semantic UIXP could have
real advantage for maintenance and compatibility of code that use those
UIXP. So I would really prefer a few initial set of those semantic UIXP to
start with, than that long list of not necessarily useful and meaningful
ones. And, at least, I would like to read more opinion to consider 2).
1) is harder and I'm afraid it can start endless discussions :)