On 07/04/2014 10:31 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Team, some more theme changes I'm thinking about for Roller 5.1, I'm
not definite on any of these, just soliciting opinions:
1.) Retiring the Sotto theme -- while pretty it's non-responsive and
doesn't offer anything that Fauxcoly doesn't have, and the latter has more
functionality and uses a more modern rendering framework. And Sotto's
margins are not wide enough to support blogging Java or other software
programs, the primary need I can see for a non-responsive theme.
Sounds good.
I removed it right now, but I'll put it into Roller-extras so it's there
if someone wants it. I also need to update the Install Guide to
indicate how/when to put in external themes.
2.) Rename the "Basic" Theme to "Dual-Theme", as its main technical benefit
is that it offers two themes, one mobile and one standard, for those who
would be interested in this type of setup. In the description for the
theme, I will mention that the mobile theme is "beta" quality due to
problems with it mentioned in my email yesterday: "Shelan, another
contributor around 2010 created a mobile weblog view for a blog, as you can
see in the upper-right corner here: http://www.nailedtothex.org/
roller/kyle/entry/nested-list-element-issue-of1 . The mobile theme
doesn't seem to work right today (that blog entry at that link shows the
problems with it, the blogger had to make changes basically making it a
standard blog anyway, and even with those changes I saw further errors with
it.)"
I'd prefer to keep the name "Basic" and either 1) fix whatever is broken in
the theme or 2) create two themes: a) Basic with no mobile features and b)
Dual-Theme with the mobile stuff as is.
This has happened sometimes on the Apache CXF project, someone wants to
give an example of a obscure new technology option so he piggybacks it
on the sample "helloworld" web service to demonstrate it; problem is,
the "helloworld" web service is no longer simple then because it
includes that new technology. The same thing here with Basic, by adding
the mobile theme to it is actually kind of complex and two themes are
not necessarily the way we would now recommend new bloggers to start
with, so perhaps "Dual Theme" would be better than calling it "Basic",
with Rolling then becoming the nonresponsive single theme option. (2)
is a fine option, though, making Rolling sufficiently redundant that we
wouldn't need it. So (1) or (2) will work for me.
By renaming this theme, we keep its main benefit while ensuring actual
bloggers realize there's problems with the present mobile theme and so they
may wish either fix it (and hopefully submit a patch), remove the mobile
theme capability (if they like the standard theme by itself) or bring in
another mobile theme. The current problem with 5.1 is that we name the
theme "Basic" which causes many to use it. However, those accessing the
blog using a smart phone or tablet end up getting an buggy Mobile theme.
Further, since most of the blood and effort today is in creating responsive
themes, fixing the problem with Basic's secondary mobile theme isn't going
to be a high priority for anyone.
I'll take a shot at fixing the mobile part of the Basic theme myself.
I'll get you, today or tomorrow, an example blog entry demonstrating the
Mobile problems, although the blog article I linked to shows much of
it. (Basically, blog articles with <ul> or <ol> aren't listing the
information properly, you can't click or drill down to it.)
Glen: (Note that Rolling may be LGPL licensed, as Roller-Extras as a whole is,
but it was apparently authored by Dave according to its theme.xml, so if
Dave could hereby declare it ASL we should be in good shape.)
Dave: Hmm. I never wanted to apply the LGPL license to anything. It is possible
that there was some JavaScript component in Rolling that is LGPL, or that I
just picked the wrong license option at some point in the Google Code UI.
Actually, Roller-extras is apparently "Other Open Source"
(https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/roller-extras/), for some
reason I thought it was LGPL. While Rolling itself may be fine with
ASL, perhaps there were other code snippets in Roller-extras that
couldn't be ASL licensed, requiring you to use a more restrictive
license like LGPL. The license is tied to the entire project AFAICT,
not individual themes. (Perhaps we should have a <license></license>
entry in the theme.xml to clear up any confusion.)
Regards,
Glen
