[pmwiki-users] View modes

Bronwyn Boltwood arndis at gmail.com
Tue Aug 9 23:14:43 CDT 2005


On 8/9/05, Radu <radu at monicsoft.net> wrote:
> At 01:25 AM 8/9/2005, Bronwyn Boltwood wrote:
> >While turning certain functions on or off would be great, it also
> >might be hairy for skin designers to implement.
> 
> Why? All recipes already have switches, and adding them would be tied
> into the view= or action= functionality.
> 
> >   How is all this stuff
> >going to be inserted?  How will PmWiki and the admin know just where
> >it will be shown in the layout?
> 
> Providing layout is the job of the skin :) There are two ways I can see:
> * make the modules locations fixed and just switch them on/off as
> Gemini already does
> * add some extra variables after the view= (or action=) one to set
> location and other module options
> ... or combinations thereof. It's really up to the skin designer.

Maybe, but at the moment, I haven't got a clear notion of what I as a
skin designer would need to do to provide even basic support for views
or how I ought to do it, and throwing in cookbook recipes just makes
visualizing and planning more difficult.  You can see why I want a
better idea of what I might be signing up for before I agree with you.
 
> >   What about all the stuff added by
> >cookbook recipes?
> 
> Once we talk about functional skins we are already integrating
> functionality (recipes) into the skins. So the view-based skins will
> integrate existing recipes. Yes, it could get a bit hairy with
> updating/upgrading recipes, but at least it's done in a central
> location (by the skin designer), and the skin users (basic admins)
> will have less of a headache.

Every single recipe out there?  Brother, this might be more of a
headache to create a skin for than anybody is willing to take on!  And
as for showing or showing the right chunks of the skin, I know how to
write CSS for that sort of thing, but is the CSS switch supposed to
happen automatically when the one in config.php is thrown, or is it
separate?  It'll make a difference.

> >   Will all skins have to be coded to accept all of it
> >in order to have views at all?
> 
> Naw! Skins which do not support views will continue as they are: eye candy.

I meant "can you write a skin that supports views, but does not
support every cookbook recipe and all the other bells and whistles?"
 
> AFAICT, Pukka's been trying to mix function and looks through css
> only and it proved a bit of a challenge...

*laughing*  The sheets to hide unwanted features were the easiest of
the lot -- most of them are one line with "display:none" in it.  The
hard stuff was to disentangle all the different kinds of eyecandy from
eachother.

And now I need a better style switcher, so I have to learn about
arrays and foreach and custom functions.  Not fun.  Interesting, but
definitely not fun.
 
> >As a base, the standard needs to contain descriptions of the four
> >standard views, and detail each view's purpose, required functions,
> >and recommended features.
> 
> Now you begin to sound like some planner from Microsoft (no offense intended ;)

That came across wrongly, if it sounded draconian.  The idea was to
help skin and recipe writers by letting them in on the current
consensus of what views were commonly needed/wanted, and what controls
those views needed to have, and what would be cool to include.
 
Bronwyn




More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list