19 Dec
2011
19 Dec
'11
12:30 p.m.
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:41, Guillaume Lerouge
<guillaume(a)xwiki.com
Indeed. The more I look at VarA, the more I like it. Can't wait to show it
during XWiki demos!!
Here's my renewed +1 for VarA.
Guillaume
wrote:
Hi,
I love VarA, great work! However it's a bit laggy on my computer (when
scrolling past the header so that the action bar has to reposition itself
the first time, I have a slight lag in FF8.0 on Mac OS X.
The "lag" you mentioned is VarX independent (present even on a default
installation) so shouldn't influence the vote.
Thanks,
Caty
"aggressive".
make
and
new
new
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
If that cannot be fixed, I'm a strong +1 for
VarC which looks much nicer
than our current default skin and doesn't seem to have significant
technical drawbacks.
Guillaume
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jerome Velociter <
jerome(a)winesquare.net
wrote:
> I have a question regarding VarB :
>
> When you say "wait for a new complete skin", you mean something
> completely different than the proposal in VarA ?
>
> If yes, then I would say, let's go for VarA, but do the new skin in
> 4.x anyway. VarA could then be the "finalized" form of colibri (the
> moment we say we don't make it evolve anymore except small things/bug
> fixes).
> I don't think the problems you mention for VarA are blocker, the
> already exists in the current state anyway. They are definitely things
> we should sort out, and if we are working on a new skin, that can be
> the ideal time.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> PS: and yes, VarA looks great, it makes the skin much less >
> Jerome
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
> <valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ludovic suggested we should refresh the Default Color Theme for XE
3.4
with
> something new. Since (and long before) we dropped support for IE6 and
IE7
> > (XE 3.2) I wanted to add some CSS3 enhancement to our default skin:
> > shadows, gradients, round corners, etc. So this is a good time to a
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Standards/WebHome
> proposal that integrates some CSS3
(gradients on menus, panels, tabs,
> buttons, forms; text-shadows; box-shadows; border-radius;) and a new
> ColorTheme into Colibri skin:
> http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/34Proposal
>
> There are 3 directions that can be voted for this proposal:
>
> *Var A:* Integrate the proposed Skin improvements and the new
ColorTheme
> into platform
> Demo at
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/WebHome
>
> *Var B: *Don't integrate anything in the 3.4 timeframe and wait for a
new
> complete skin in 4.x = Current skin +
default ColorTheme (no changes)
> Demo at http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/WebHome
>
> *Var C:* Integrate just the new proposed ColorTheme that will replace
the
> > current DefaultColorTheme
> > Demo at >
>
>
> *Important remarks when making a decision:*
>
> *Var B* and *Var C *does not involve any changes, problems or
advantages
> > from the current Colibri skin.
> >
> > Advantages for *Var A*:
> > - Tested on IE7, IE8, IE9, Opera 11, Chrome 16, Firefox 8, Safari 5 >
works beautifully.
> - Uses CSS3 declarations that makes the skin more nice (gradients,
round
> > corners, shades, etc.)
> >
> > Problems for *Var A*:
> > - The existing ColorThemes (from the ColorThemes space and
> > extensions.xwiki.org) will become deprecated for XE 3.4 since the skin
> needs shades for the gradients (this means the existing ColorThemes
> variables will be either used in ways they were not intended or they
will
> > not have all the variables declared). See my previous mail about
> "[Discussion]
> > Problematic ColorTheme
> > extensibility"<http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/ex6fgou6fl6vjwfr>
> > - The CSS will become even more invalid (right now we have a
> > -moz-border-radius and a word-wrap non valid declarations), but the > code
contains 154 declarations for the gradients (covering
> -moz-linear-gradient, -webkit-gradient, -webkit-linear-gradient,
> -o-linear-gradient, -ms-linear-gradient, linear-gradient and filter:
> progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.gradient proprietary declarations).
The
> invalidity comes because the proprietary
declarations are not yet W3C
> standard (and will not ever be a standard). The proposed standard W3C
> declaration (linear-gradient) is not yet supported consistently and
> correctly by browsers, but when it will become standard we can remove
all
the other
proprietary declarations.
Please cast your vote.
Thanks,
Caty
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Jérôme Velociter
Winesquare
http://www.winesquare.net/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs