Ok, then I am glad that I was not barking up the wrong tree on this
matter.
So, what makes sense to me is that a set of macros needs to be developed
that either produces no html or that produces an xhtml framework that
the theme's CSS can style in a Zen Garden sort of way.
I think I like the second approach, but Allen's insights about MT are
probably more helpful than my thinking.
What I would like to see is that #showBlogroll producing a basic xhtml
structure such as:
<ul class="level1">
<li>Blogroll</li>
<ul class="level2">
<li><a href="">Dave Johnson</a></li>
<li><a href="">Matt Raible</a></li>
...
</ul>
<li>News</li>
<ul class ="level2">
<li><a href="">Che Nuke</a></li>
<li><a href="">LabourStart</a></li>
...
</ul>
...
</ul>
The user could then wrap this xhtml in a nice <div></div> of there
design and be on their way.
Although, this would lead into a discussion of class attributes, etc, so
I can see the value in Allen's suggestion that no html be produced from
the macro starting to make some solid sense.
In that case I guess we would be arriving at a templating situation.
I should add that I would like to be of some assistance on this and,
although I am by no means a java programmer, I would be eager to lend a
hand in some way.
Brian
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 20:43 -0700, Allen Gilliland wrote:
>
> Brian Blakeley wrote:
> > While, I am all for a smaller selection of high quality themes shipping
> > with Roller and the development of a third party themes farm-system, I
> > think this raises the opportunity for me to ask a question I have been
> > having.
> >
> > I have been trying to develop a new theme that will knock your socks off
> > and I am having a major issue with the code produced by the velocity
> > macros.
> >
> > Basically, the code produced by many of the macros [i.e. #showBlogroll()
> > and #showRSSLinks() ] is making the CSS for something I want to do
> > almost if not completely impossible.
> >
> > If the proposal is to clamp down on "non-standards compatible" themes I
> > think the effort needs to be preceded with the development of a full set
> > of CSS friendly standards compliant macros.
>
> yep, i am of the exact same opinion. this is one of the reasons why i
> am still lobbying against macros that produce html for users. from my
> experience with MT i don't remember them ever using macros that actually
> write html for the user, the user always writes the html and inserts the
> appropriate data where appropriate via variables, etc.
>
> >
> > I hope I am missing something with regard to the macros, but I don't
> > think so.
>
> nope, you aren't missing anything =(
>
> -- Allen
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 20:52 -0400, Dave Johnson wrote:
> >> On May 8, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Matt Raible wrote:
> >>
> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we still in a situation where
> >>> removing themes will break people's blogs during an upgrade?
> >> You are correct. We have to keep the existing themes or we will break
> >> existing users blogs.
> >>
> >> There are a number of themes that I would like to drop (I don't even
> >> want to maintain them at Roller Support), but I believe the only way
> >> we can do that now is to keep those themes in Roller but make it
> >> impossible to choose them.
> >>
> >>
> >>> If so, we should find a way to solve this and ship Roller with only
> >>> 2-3 (or even just 1) good-looking, standards-compliant themes. Then
> >>> figure out a way to grow a community around producing themes like
> >>> Wordpress has done.
> >> +1
> >>
> >> - Dave
> >>
> >
