Breaking the very broad toolset and knowledge of developers in HTML to create XWiki content and applications is, to me, suicidal. Who would be ready to replace most of its html by macros? Paul On 31 janv. 2013, at 15:26, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) wrote: _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Correct Jean-Vincent, and I was probably too harsh describing it, but I understood Ecaterina's point to be a strive for a radical request to move away from html. Maybe this can be described in several stages?

paul On 1 févr. 2013, at 11:09, Jean-Vincent Drean wrote: wrote: create XWiki content and applications is, to me, suicidal. related standard say classes just for if you will have very work for to same and could vs. loosely [Discussion] to get and a new complexity, our very an a class. ... css buttons, UI, maybe we HTML, but care, and want. there customized, see generator, so primary way it use. less document, java on better. usable _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi Devs, I have setup a public demonstration of my Bluebird Experimental Skin in the incubator: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/BluebirdSkin/WebHome This demo is aimed to support the purpose of this brainstorming. I hope it will inspire you to comment further on this thread. For those who will undoubtedly ask, no this skin is not yet published. I doubt I will publish it since it is unfinished with some rough edges and missing features, but you may try to convince me of the opposite ;)

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Paul Libbrecht <paul(a)hoplahup.net> wrote: > >> Correct Jean-Vincent, and I was probably too harsh describing it, >> >> but I understood Ecaterina's point to be a strive for a radical request >> to move away from html. >> Maybe this can be described in several stages? >> > > What we are discussing is mainly to get away from producing the same html > in several places of our standard UI, so we can change it easily for > creating different kind of skins. Currently, to produce a button in the > XWiki UI, we always use the same html, but we produce that same HTML from > different places in the source code, and it is therefore not easy to change > the way button are rendered (to conform with markup require by bootstrap > for example). > > Usually, you do not really care about the HTML since you can use a custom > CSS to change its appearance. But here, we definitely want to the opposite, > adapting our HTML to support existing CSS like bootstrap, and benefit of > all the derived CSS based on it very easily. > > In no way, this will change your ability to use HTML in XWiki, we will > propose additional way to produce UI elements that will > integrate seamlessly with the XWiki UI. For exampke, when you write an > extension, you may want your extension to look like the rest of the UI, and > not reinvent the button. > > >> >> paul >> >> >> On 1 févr. 2013, at 11:09, Jean-Vincent Drean wrote: >> >>> AFAIU the thread is not about breaking things, it's about using xwiki >>> syntax and macros (mostly for forms since the 2.0 syntax covers a lot >>> of the html markup) to benefit from a standardized styling. Existing >>> HTML would still be working, and it would be possible to write apps >>> with HTML, but you'd have to handle styling on your own. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Paul Libbrecht <paul(a)hoplahup.net> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Breaking the very broad toolset and knowledge of developers in HTML to >> create XWiki content and applications is, to me, suicidal. >>>> Who would be ready to replace most of its html by macros? >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> >>>> On 31 janv. 2013, at 15:26, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Denis, >>>>> >>>>> When we discussed the Vertical Forms Standard [1] Thomas mentioned >>>>> something about "commons tools to follow that standard (like form >> related >>>>> wiki macros for example)". Some considered that having macros for >> standard >>>>> HTML controls will just duplicate HTML language. >>>>> >>>>> One advantage of having such macros would be that for example (let's >> say >>>>> the macros will be defined in macros.vm) if you want to change the >> classes >>>>> used by the controls (like .buttonwrapper class for example), you are >> just >>>>> changing the macros, not all the places that call them. >>>>> >>>>> This way you could easily change what classes you assign to a button >> for >>>>> example from span.buttonwrapper input.button.secondary to >>>>> button.btn.btn-primary (bootstrap way - of course we will also need to >>>>> standardize the usage component: input, button, a, etc.) >>>>> >>>>> The example above refers mostly to standard HTML elements. Of course >> if you >>>>> want to use other types of components from different frameworks you >> will >>>>> need to rewrite the templates, and this always calls for a new skin. >>>>> >>>>> I thought about new skins for XWiki and since I joined the project we >>>>> mostly deprecated old skins than creating new ones. But one problem I >> have >>>>> is the concept of base skin. For me the base skin should be something >> very >>>>> minimal. >>>>> It should contain just the typography, standard controls, the grid, >> the >>>>> reset, anyway elements that are not layout dependent and that will >> work for >>>>> any skin. I'm not sure about templates, because mostly templates >> refer to >>>>> layout and how you arrange things and what functionality you reveal >> and >>>>> where, and this usually change with a new skin. Technical the base >> skin >>>>> should contain the Standard, the base for things that will remain the >> same >>>>> no matter what. Right now Colibri covers much more than that. >>>>> >>>>> And this standard is absolutely necessary also for the way we go with >>>>> extensions. We know very well that in an Open Source project, >> everybody >>>>> codes with his own style and having a common ground is essential from >> a >>>>> consistency point of view. All the applications that will be created >> and >>>>> published by the community members should have a common style that >> could >>>>> make them integrate well inside XWiki, no matter of the creator. >>>>> >>>>> So the conclusion is that for this we will need a very well documented >>>>> standard and the tools to enforce it. Not sure what this means. >>>>> >>>>> Also other things worth discussing is colorthemes variables and macros >>>>> against LESS variables and mixins. >>>>> Also the Bootstrap / LESS is also a direction bet, just like >> Prototype vs. >>>>> JQuery, and the solution we pick it would be great if it would be >> loosely >>>>> coupled. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Caty >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Another discussion somehow related to extensibility is >> [Discussion] >>>>> Problematic ColorTheme extensibility >>>>> http://markmail.org/thread/ex6fgou6fl6vjwfr >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/DevGuide/VerticalForms >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Devs, >>>>>> >>>>>> As you may have noted from a previous mail, I have given a try to >> skin >>>>>> XWiki differently, based on Bootstrap. There is certainly many ways >> to get >>>>>> it done, but IMO, building over any pre-made css solution requires an >>>>>> adaptation of the HTML generated. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the early days of XWiki, the were few places were we have HTML >>>>>> generated. Most of the html produce came from three major places: >>>>>> 1) .vm templates including macros.vm >>>>>> 2) java generated (#display()) >>>>>> 3) XWiki tech document >>>>>> >>>>>> While 2) and 3) either provide very basic markup or customizable one >> and >>>>>> are not so much, and 1) was fully customizable by skins, to work out >> a new >>>>>> skin was not too complex. >>>>>> >>>>>> Today however, the UI of XWiki has considerably increase its >> complexity, >>>>>> and the source of HTML has followed, added to the above 3: >>>>>> 4) XWiki and Java macros >>>>>> 5) JavaScript (ie: annotation UI, comments preview) >>>>>> >>>>>> Changing all these places has become really more painful. There is no >>>>>> central place, and a lot of hidden dependencies between UI components >>>>>> exists. Worse examples are those written in JS, that hook into the >> UI. >>>>>> >>>>>> I should admit that I have not a clear idea of the best way to >> improve >>>>>> that, but my feeling is that changing so much places simply to adapt >> our >>>>>> wiki skin to the "a la mode" skin solution (something that will >> happen >>>>>> again) is not nice. >>>>>> >>>>>> So this thread is now open for anyone to discuss the situation and >> for >>>>>> anyone interested to provide its input to the discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking at what I face building the UI with bootstrap, here is what I >>>>>> noticed: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Bootstrap customize standard tags, without any css class >> associated >>>>>> 2) Bootstrap provide standard css classes to skin a given kind of UI >>>>>> component >>>>>> 3) Bootstrap use these class and custom attribute to inject JS >>>>>> interactivity >>>>>> >>>>>> All these are really clean methods and work really well at building >> very >>>>>> simple html construct while providing nice looking and easy >> interface. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's take a concrete example, to build a button, you may use either >> an a >>>>>> tag, an input tag, a button tag or whatever, and set it a 'btn' css >> class. >>>>>> You may complement it with additional 'btn-primary', 'btn-success', >> ... css >>>>>> classes, to choose the kind of button you really want. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, in our XWiki UI, there no single place where we construct >> buttons, >>>>>> we do so in some velocity macros of macros.vm, we do so in .vm of >> the UI, >>>>>> we also do so in javascript, and finally in some wiki documents, >> maybe we >>>>>> also generate some in a java component. >>>>>> All those buttons are usually built the same, with a very similar >> HTML, but >>>>>> there is no central place where the button markup is produced. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the same is true for most UI component. You may say we don't >> care, and >>>>>> CSS could solve them all, making any kind of markup look the way we >> want. >>>>>> But, we will loose the benefit of using existing CSS solution. And >> there >>>>>> are interesting benefit to that, since those solution gets >> customized, see >>>>>> BootsWatch for example. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, it seems to me that we need something like an UI >> generator, so >>>>>> that when you build a application, you would simply says, I want a >> primary >>>>>> button here, a secondary button there, and it gets created both the >> way it >>>>>> should for your apps to use it, but also for the UI design we want >> to use. >>>>>> >>>>>> Defining a list of these UI component is not simple, but we may take >>>>>> Bootstrap as a starting point. There is in Bootstrap a large number >> of >>>>>> control already, that should cover many UI possibilities. >>>>>> >>>>>> How to provide that UI component to all the places we need it may be >> less >>>>>> obvious. For example, we need to create button from .vm, XWiki >> document, >>>>>> XWiki and java Macros, and even from javascript. Also defining how >> you >>>>>> could expect to interact with each control, from Javascript or from >> java on >>>>>> the server needs clarification. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have not yet googled, but there may be existing experience >> regarding >>>>>> these matters on other project. Not reinventing the wheel is always >> better. >>>>>> Your ideas are welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> IMO, we really need that if we want our Skin 4.x to be really more >> usable >>>>>> for customization. >>>>>> >>>>>> WDYT ?