Thread: Re: [Webwork-devel] Controls and CSS vs tables
Brought to you by:
baldree,
rickardoberg
|
From: Mike Cannon-B. <mi...@at...> - 2002-01-20 02:21:31
|
No! My vote is definitely -1 on this one. The default templates as is use tables which is much more cross browser compatible and easy to modify IMHO. I have no problem with a CSS 'scheme' for templates but IMHO the default should use tables. I know people are going to bitch about which the 'default' scheme should be - so I have a counter argument ;) Why not add a configuration option for the 'default' scheme to webwork.properties? ui.scheme.default=css Etc. That way tables can be the default (with no extra configuration) and people with the 'know how' can easily change to CSS as the default scheme with one change (not changing every <ui> tag!) - much less bitching! (IMHO this option also has lots of extra uses, sometimes I'd like to 'design' a new scheme and then swap the entire site at once to a new scheme - this would make it very easy) My $0.02. -mike On 19/1/02 10:18 AM, "Rickard" (ri...@mi...) penned the words: > Hey > > I'm fiddling with the WebWork controls for use in TSS, and tried to > convert the templates to use CSS instead of tables for layout control. > > It was pretty simple, and the result was much less JSP's and easier to > control in more detail, plus there's no need for a table to construct a > form this way. Much nicer. > > So, is everyone ok with using this instead of the table approach to > doing layout? I tested it with Mozilla, IE 5.5 and Opera 6, and they all > liked the CSS. > > /Rickard |
|
From: Mike Cannon-B. <mi...@at...> - 2002-01-20 14:15:19
|
TSS isn't exactly a cross section of the internet going public, and I'd certainly say that they are 'tech savvy'? ;) IMHO the configuration option in webwork.properties is actually very useful I've just discovered another reason I want it - to make an app easily skinnable combined with sitemesh! Now I can just change decorators.xml aliases, and swap the template scheme for the whole app - I can ship out a WAR that looks completely different in minutes. -mike On 20/1/02 4:51 AM, "Rickard" (ri...@mi...) penned the words: > Maurice Parker wrote: > >> I'm -1 on using CSS over tables on this unless we can get it going with >> the version 4 browsers. Many shops still require backwards >> compatibility that far. >> >> Did TSS give you any minimum browser requirements? Any browser usage >> numbers for the site? > > > 92%+ of all TSS users have IE5 or higher. > > >> How about just adding another set of templates for CSS and not delete >> the "standard" templates? > > > That seems to be the best idea, along with Mikes idea re: configurability. > > /Rickard |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-01-20 14:21:26
|
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote: > TSS isn't exactly a cross section of the internet going public, and I'd > certainly say that they are 'tech savvy'? ;) Yup, I'm aware of that. Just indulging in a wee bit of wishful thinking here. >:-) > IMHO the configuration option in webwork.properties is actually very useful > > I've just discovered another reason I want it - to make an app easily > skinnable combined with sitemesh! Now I can just change decorators.xml > aliases, and swap the template scheme for the whole app - I can ship out a > WAR that looks completely different in minutes. Yup, even better then. Alright, I'm convinced. You wanna do this or should I? /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg Author of "Mastering RMI" Chief Architect, TheServerSide.com The Middleware Company - We Build Experts! |
|
From: Mike Cannon-B. <mi...@at...> - 2002-01-20 14:45:13
|
On 20/1/02 9:21 AM, "Rickard" (ri...@mi...) penned the words: >> IMHO the configuration option in webwork.properties is actually very useful >> >> I've just discovered another reason I want it - to make an app easily >> skinnable combined with sitemesh! Now I can just change decorators.xml >> aliases, and swap the template scheme for the whole app - I can ship out a >> WAR that looks completely different in minutes. > > > Yup, even better then. Alright, I'm convinced. You wanna do this or > should I? I'd hate to steal your thunder mate - I'll test it ;) -mike |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-01-20 19:31:02
|
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote: > I'd hate to steal your thunder mate - I'll test it ;) I've added this to CVS now. Unfortunately it's not as easy as just switching themes, since with the standard theme you have to have a <table> tag and the CSS one doesn't. I guess the right way to fix it is to introduce a <form> tag.. we'll see. Try it out and see what you think. Currently the "position" attribute of the JSP tags is not used. Instead you specify in the CSS file whether the labels should be on top of or next to the control. As it should be, i.e. style is defined in CSS, not HTML or JSP. /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg Author of "Mastering RMI" Chief Architect, TheServerSide.com The Middleware Company - We Build Experts! |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-01-20 09:58:58
|
+1. Good ideas. Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote: > No! My vote is definitely -1 on this one. The default templates as is use > tables which is much more cross browser compatible and easy to modify IMHO. > > I have no problem with a CSS 'scheme' for templates but IMHO the default > should use tables. > > I know people are going to bitch about which the 'default' scheme should be > - so I have a counter argument ;) Why not add a configuration option for the > 'default' scheme to webwork.properties? > > ui.scheme.default=css > > Etc. That way tables can be the default (with no extra configuration) and > people with the 'know how' can easily change to CSS as the default scheme > with one change (not changing every <ui> tag!) - much less bitching! > > (IMHO this option also has lots of extra uses, sometimes I'd like to > 'design' a new scheme and then swap the entire site at once to a new scheme > - this would make it very easy) |