[Pmwiki-users] CSS layout in pmwiki-0.6

[J. Perkins]

Okay, next time I'll have my coffee before I start writing email. My 
apologies for inflicting my previous post on everyone. ;)

Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> Actually, I think the vast majority of the discussion has centered 
> around problems with *non*-table oriented layouts, or people's desire to
> use a non-table-oriented layout but not being able to make it work properly.  

I wasn't clear. I meant that the page structure, with text grouped into 
left, center, and right blocks over three different areas (header, etc.) 
was not a browser-friendly layout. I called it table-oriented because it 
originated with the table-based layout. I felt a two-column design was 
"cleaner" from an HTML standpoint.

>>The root of the problem, I think, is 
>>that the design is not browser-friendly, and more importantly, it 
>>doesn't scale well as new features are added. I also believe that it is 
>>excessively complex.
> 
> Which design are you talking about here--the classic PmWiki table layout,
> or the new one put together in the 0.6-beta?  

Originally I was talking about the classic layout and the proposed 
version that split the header into a "site header" and a "page header". 
The latest version on the beta site, which I just checked out, is 
looking nicer.

Again I wasn't clear though. My comments were about the current 
configuration of group/title on the left and a list of links on the 
right. I was suggesting that this setup doesn't accomodate adding more 
page links (like "show authors", perhaps). Moving the search into it's 
own area helps this situation.

> I conceptually disagree here.  The standard web convention tends to be
> that *site navigation* goes on the left, and "controls" such as login, 
> preferences, help, edit, etc. are either in the top banner or the upper-right.  

Okay, that is a fair point. It's a distinction I hadn't considered.

> And although these later comments appeared to have come from a prior
> message (which I must have missed in the earlier discussions, sorry)...
> some other responses...

Heh. Actually those comments were typed several days ago and saved as a 
draft. Since then most of the points I mentioned were addressed by other 
posters. I forgot to remove the text before sending this morning. Again, 
my apologies!

Jason