Re: [xwiki-devs] UI Standards for now and the future

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: make Because Another reason why I prefer the .xform is the usage of dl-dt-dd in its structure. This means that if the CSS is disabled it fallback on the browser defaults (compared to BS usage of simple divs). Supporting CSS-disable or JS-disable use cases is a topic that we can discuss if we still want to support. We have some classes that are used everywhere http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/SpecialCSSClasses like (.suggestUsers, .loading, etc). Again we can discuss if we want to keep them and integrate them in our standard or if we should deprecate them (for some classes we have a BS replacement, some like .withTip are deprecated by placeholders, but we still might have some classes that are just XWiki specific). We cannot force anyone to use something that they don't want, the issue is what we recommend. If we recommend a specific version of Bootstrap and people start using it, we need to be careful on what solutions we provide if we upgrade Bootstrap to another version. of Another solution would be froze a specific BS version as our standard, but I don't think it's desired. Assuring ourselves backwards compatibility for a framework that doesn't care about it is not a solution either. An improvement at least would be the extensions creators to mention on which XWiki version they build their extension on, in order for us to determine the BS version they used. skins As I said in a previous mail, we can have a common base, shared by both Colibri, Flamingo or any other future skin, and we can have skin-dependent variables. http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Extension/FlamingoColorTheme… It might not look perfect but at least they are compatible.

modify I agree. Too much work and except the separation advantage, it increased the time you need to use it, the size of the file, etc. Bootstrap, We still need to define our xwiki-specific things, but sure we shouldn't reinvent the wheel for everything. We kind of need to take a leap of faith. If Bootstrap will break everything for us, we can: - create a new skin :) that uses another framework that cares about backwards compatibility or write our own standard; - the extensions could use a ssx with the correct BS version that they were created on or use an import to the needed version; - we might need to froze a specific BS version in our platform or rewrite our code to match the new BS version or another framework. because As you said there is no perfect solution and having a third-party entity there is no way we can vouch for their actions or assure a perfect backwards compatibility. Flamingo is still not a clean skin and again it builds up on our old templates structure and still assures backwards compatibility as well as it can. But at least is a step further. Depending on the success of this skin, we can decide in the new future skin what path to take and maybe we can find solutions to provide multiple supported skins. Thanks, Caty and written for _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs