Menu
▾
▴
phpwebsite-developers
|
From: Neal S. <n_s...@ch...> - 2005-05-15 04:02:43
|
I had some questions about the development of phpWebSite that I was hoping someone could answer for me. Why is the transitional version of XHTML used rather than the strict? Most the table tags could be replaced by <div> tags and the CSS could be what is effected by the templates. If development is going in this direction, I would be happy to help with the coding to get there. Is there a module to create static content? I'm looking for a way to ease the load on the server, and as the content is not updated often, that would be an easy solution. Keeping this project in beta status? What features still need testing or development? Thanks for the help, Neal |
|
From: Neal S. <n_s...@ch...> - 2005-05-20 04:40:41
|
I had some questions about the development of phpWebSite that I was hoping someone could answer for me. Why is the transitional version of XHTML used rather than the strict? Most the table tags could be replaced by <div> tags and the CSS could be what is effected by the templates. If development is going in this direction, I would be happy to help with the coding to get there. Is there a module to create static content? I'm looking for a way to ease the load on the server, and as the content is not updated often, that would be an easy solution. Keeping this project in beta status? What features still need testing or development? Thanks for the help, Neal |
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2005-05-20 12:25:01
|
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 23:40 -0500, Neal Schilling wrote: > Why is the transitional version of XHTML used rather than the strict? Because when we were starting out, strict recommendations gave us browser incompatibilities on campus. We also were not skilled enough at the time to overcome them. > Most the table tags could be replaced by <div> tags and the CSS could be > what is effected by the templates. If development is going in this > direction, I would be happy to help with the coding to get there. Version 1.x (release-time-unknown) aims for a more CSSentric layout. > Is there a module to create static content? I'm looking for a way to > ease the load on the server, and as the content is not updated often, > that would be an easy solution. Not that I am aware of. We will look into it for 1.x though caching may alleviate some of these problems. > Keeping this project in beta status? What features still need testing or > development? 0.8 was the beginning. 0.9 was the rewrite. 0.10 are the tweaks. 1.0 will be the stable. The earlier beta software helped us decide what worked and what didn't. They were on-the-job training for 1.0. There will be great demand for developers once 1.0 is released in alpha. - new modules - new themes - discussion of new libs and processes - new translations - rewriting old modules - testing old modules for compatibility I realize that we have been talking about 1.x (or 0.9.4 at one time) for seemingly ever. It is getting closer. It is slated to come out the same day as Duke Nukem Forever. Come by our chat root for more information. freenode.net #phpwebsite -- Matthew McNaney Electronic Student Services Appalachian State University http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2005-05-20 12:40:16
|
On 20 May 2005, at 05:40, Neal Schilling wrote: > I had some questions about the development of phpWebSite that I was > hoping someone could answer for me. > > Why is the transitional version of XHTML used rather than the strict? Historically, it started as transitional some years ago because it was a more practical solution moving from the previous version and at the time browsers weren't very good at strict compliance. Some still aren't. Also many features can't be done in strict. For instance, target="_blank" on links. Transitional is pragmatically a better solution currently. However, the intention is to move to stricter XHTML compliance and the removal of embedded HTML inside the php code itself, replacing it with templated code and broadening the use of CSS. > Most the table tags could be replaced by <div> tags and the CSS > could be > what is effected by the templates. If development is going in this > direction, I would be happy to help with the coding to get there. I'd disagree partly. Tables are much more flexible for layout than using CSS when used sparingly. The main problem is how to make a 3 column layout where the columns collapse when there is no content in the column. With a table it will collapse the column to zero width. Since you have to cope with many different presentations inside a 3 column layout with a single theme.tpl file, tables are more flexible. You can however change that yourself if you don't need to be that flexible - just edit the theme templates. There's also nothing wrong with using tables for many of the places they are used in phpWebSite as much of the data presented is tabular. I find it quite daft that people go to great lengths to reinvent the table using reams of CSS and co-opting things like definition lists for purposes they weren't intended for. There are also problems with containing content within divs and problems with disparate heights. These problems will become less and less as both we as developers understand the issues and we expand the use of xhtml in phpwebsite but until Internet Explorer is fixed, there's a lot of issues that can't be resolved with XHTML Strict, even if we force on hasLayout or hack around in CSS. Maybe IE7 will be truly wonderful, fix it's box model, switch on hasLayout, support PNG, support CSS2.1+. Maybe not. But it will be a while before we can rely on decent standards support. > > Is there a module to create static content? I'm looking for a way to > ease the load on the server, and as the content is not updated often, > that would be an easy solution. > Not currently. Spiggy did one some time ago which would index html pages but not generate them. phpWebSite isn't really set up for generating static content. > Keeping this project in beta status? What features still need > testing or > development? > Have a look at the Fallout tree in CVS. This is where phpWebSite is heading. Many of the embedded old-style HTML issues have been addressed already. http://res1.stddev.appstate.edu/cvs/cvs.php Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk |
|
From: Neal S. <n_s...@ch...> - 2005-05-20 13:59:06
|
>> Most the table tags could be replaced by <div> tags and the CSS >> could be >> what is effected by the templates. If development is going in this >> direction, I would be happy to help with the coding to get there. > > > I'd disagree partly. Tables are much more flexible for layout than > using CSS when used sparingly. The main problem is how to make a 3 > column layout where the columns collapse when there is no content in > the column. With a table it will collapse the column to zero width. > Since you have to cope with many different presentations inside a 3 > column layout with a single theme.tpl file, tables are more flexible. > You can however change that yourself if you don't need to be that > flexible - just edit the theme templates. > While I'll agree there are many aspects that make tables appropriate, properly implemented, a DIV can be much more flexible. The ultimate goal, as I see it, would be to eliminate most of the templates and have the CSS generated by the application which turns it into whatever columns, headings, or the like. > > There's also nothing wrong with using tables for many of the places > they are used in phpWebSite as much of the data presented is tabular. > I find it quite daft that people go to great lengths to reinvent the > table using reams of CSS and co-opting things like definition lists > for purposes they weren't intended for. > > There are also problems with containing content within divs and > problems with disparate heights. For items that are tabular, a table makes logical sense, but in my experience, I've found that a table should be avoided in formatting, whenever possible. The options they make available are over shaddowed by the difficulty in changing the layout when that becomes necessary. > > These problems will become less and less as both we as developers > understand the issues and we expand the use of xhtml in phpwebsite > but until Internet Explorer is fixed, there's a lot of issues that > can't be resolved with XHTML Strict, even if we force on hasLayout or > hack around in CSS. > > Maybe IE7 will be truly wonderful, fix it's box model, switch on > hasLayout, support PNG, support CSS2.1+. Maybe not. But it will be a > while before we can rely on decent standards support. > > While Microsoft does seem to have a problem following in line with the standards, those problems can be over come with a standard JavaScript. It's a solution that not many people take because it means that users running IE that have JavaScript disables may have difficulty viewing the web page, but most people who use IE don't know how to disable JavaScript. (My appoligies to all those IE users I've just insulted). People who would generally have JavaScript disabled have moved to FireFox or Opera where the non-complience is not a problem. I honestly doubt that IE7 will have a better complience to the standards than IE6. That just doesn't follow Microsofts habits. The only solution is to find a way to deal with the differences. |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2005-05-20 14:26:15
|
On 20 May 2005, at 14:58, Neal Schilling wrote: > While I'll agree there are many aspects that make tables > appropriate, properly implemented, a DIV can be much more flexible. > The ultimate goal, as I see it, would be to eliminate most of the > templates and have the CSS generated by the application which turns > it into whatever columns, headings, or the like. > I'd stop using phpWebSite entirely if it generated the CSS from inside the application and we didn't have templates. It'd be a terrible resource hog generating CSS files or worse, inline CSS. IME, developers often have no idea about design so leaving them to play with the crayons is worse than if you let them create templates. > > For items that are tabular, a table makes logical sense, but in my > experience, I've found that a table should be avoided in > formatting, whenever possible. The options they make available are > over shaddowed by the difficulty in changing the layout when that > becomes necessary. > Whilst I agree entirely with static content sites, I disagree entirely with template driven dynamically generated sites. IME, editing templates is much easier, more powerful and more consistent than using CSS entirely. There's a mix to be struck. I'd hate to see templates go and I'd hate to see CSS being generated by PHP code. However, that's not to say more CSS and less HTML shouldn't be used where possible. > > I honestly doubt that IE7 will have a better complience to the > standards than IE6. That just doesn't follow Microsofts habits. The > only solution is to find a way to deal with the differences. ok, but the most differences are in how IE handles CSS and the least in it's (X)HTML compliance, so the best solution would be sticking with (X)HTML. Cue someone saying we should do it all in XML and use XSLT ;-) Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk |
|
From: Neal S. <n_s...@ch...> - 2005-05-20 14:58:06
|
> I'd stop using phpWebSite entirely if it generated the CSS from > inside the application and we didn't have templates. It'd be a > terrible resource hog generating CSS files or worse, inline CSS. IME, > developers often have no idea about design so leaving them to play > with the crayons is worse than if you let them create templates. > > Whilst I agree entirely with static content sites, I disagree > entirely with template driven dynamically generated sites. IME, > editing templates is much easier, more powerful and more consistent > than using CSS entirely. I apologize that I seemed have conveyed my idea poorly. Allowing the developer to actually create the CSS would be as bad as having them create the templates. The CSS could be created completely internal and transparent to the users. The advantage would come that the CSS blocks would remain static and only the id tags (#name, and .class) would need to be changed. They could even be written out to a static file because they would not be changing often. > > There's a mix to be struck. I'd hate to see templates go and I'd hate > to see CSS being generated by PHP code. However, that's not to say > more CSS and less HTML shouldn't be used where possible. > I agree there is a ballence to be struck. All CSS is a poor design choice and all (X)HTML is a poor choice. Somewhere in the middle is the most efficient solution. > > ok, but the most differences are in how IE handles CSS and the least > in it's (X)HTML compliance, so the best solution would be sticking > with (X)HTML. > As I mentioned before, the CSS can be modified by JavaScript to make it display properly. It's cheating and defeats the purpose of CSS, but it is a function workaround. |
|
From: Brian W. B. <br...@tu...> - 2005-05-20 18:09:48
|
In response to Neal's Questions: > Why is the transitional version of XHTML used rather than the strict? A little history is in order here. When we first started working on phpWebSite, XHTML was still a W3C Candidate Recommendation. We opted to use XHTML Transitional because we felt that XHTML (in general) was the technically intelligent approach to using the Web, but at the time XHTML was very new. There is a reason the W3C releases "Transitional" specifications to aid, um... transitions. > Most the table tags could be replaced by <div> tags and the CSS could be > what is effected by the templates. If development is going in this > direction, I would be happy to help with the coding to get there. I have long been an opponent of using tables for layout. The fundamental concept of markup is to identify a documents *structure*. That being said, phpWebSite will continue to use tables where the data presented is "tabular" in nature. Not doing so is as crazy as using table tricks for layout. One should also keep in mind that we still must make compromises to allow for old browsers and browser incompatibilities with CSS. I wish the browser landscape was more friendly, but in reality it is not. > Keeping this project in beta status? What features still need testing or > development? One of the hallmarks of open source software is the way that it evolves. As we have developed phpWebSite the software and the needs it addresses have both seen remarkable change. We are approaching a final version, but this long evolutionary process has helped to insure that we will ultimately produce an outstanding work. In short, we do not feel it is "done" and won't call it 1.0.0 until we feel satisfied with every aspect of phpWebSite. Kind Regards, Brian W. Brown phpWebSite Project Manager -- Brian W. Brown Director, Electronic Student Services Room 269, John Thomas Hall Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 vox: 828-262-7124 http://ess.appstate.edu/ http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu/ |
|
From: Wendall C. <wen...@to...> - 2005-05-20 22:17:00
|
Brian W. Brown wrote: >>Most the table tags could be replaced by <div> tags and the CSS could be >>what is effected by the templates. If development is going in this >>direction, I would be happy to help with the coding to get there. >> >> > >I have long been an opponent of using tables for layout. The fundamental >concept of markup is to identify a documents *structure*. That being said, >phpWebSite will continue to use tables where the data presented is >"tabular" in nature. Not doing so is as crazy as using table tricks for >layout. One should also keep in mind that we still must make compromises >to allow for old browsers and browser incompatibilities with CSS. I wish >the browser landscape was more friendly, but in reality it is not. > > I'll add my two cents here. Shawn pointed out earlier that tables are necessary for some layout aspects. I agree and would like to point out that this has to do with a bug in css 2.0 where there was no definition for how overflow was handled. In a table cell, the cell retains its width while expanding content vertically. This has been the expected behaviour for more than a decade. It makes sense since you scroll vertically for web pages and not horizontally. This issue has been resolved for div in css 2.1 spec, but I imagine it will be a while yet before it makes its way into browsers. REF: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-width With Microsofts history of lagging several years behind fixes in specs, I can see a valid reason for having the capability of using strict and transitional for some time. Just depends on layout needs. Also, if you read a little bit about the history of tables. W3C has been on the warpath to eliminate tables since Netscape added them. Tables are very nice to use in moderation and are very powerful for layout since their behaviour is predictable, unlike abs positioning. Tables are a good thing regardless what w3c has stated. It was their failure to come up with a working spec for more than ten years that has made them so widely used. I doubt that will change much over the next five years. Wendall |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X