On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. That's a good point, but I'm not a fan of the name "Dual-Theme"... perhaps we should have Basic (with no mobile pages) and Basic-Mobile. I'm up for doing the work for separating them out. > >> 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.) > I did some local testing with the Basic theme and did not see the mobile problems mentioned in that blog entry, so that would be helpful. > 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.) > A <license> element seems like a good idea, or just a LICENSE.txt file in each theme. - Dave
