Em Quinta 21 Junho 2007 03:16, você escreveu:
> I'm sure I've confused quite a few people with this description,
> but hopefully I also clarified some things for others. For now,
> just go with whatever makes you most comfortable.
You have clarified things a lot for me, right after the part wher
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:03:46AM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Authors can't modify /pub/css/local.css, but they will be able to
> > modify a site header page if Proposal #2 takes effect.
>
> But anywhere, users won't be able to re-define styles, as local.css
> comes last when loaded by p
Em Quinta 21 Junho 2007 01:03, você escreveu:
> What I really mean is this , why have a SiteAdmin.SiteHeader (Keep it
> inside SiteAdmin) if security is not important ...
Maybe because there is no better place to put it.
CarlosAB
___
pmwiki-users mail
Em Quarta 20 Junho 2007 13:40, você escreveu:
> On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Site wide styles will not be honored , it doesn't matter where you put
> > it (Group|Default|Site)Header, because it can be overridden by styles
> > defined within the page.
>
> I don't kno
On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Site wide styles will not be honored , it doesn't matter where you put it
> (Group|Default|Site)Header, because it can be overridden by styles defined
> within the page.
I don't know what you mean by being honored, but sitewide wikistyl
On 6/19/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:41:12PM -0700, H. Fox wrote:
> > On 6/19/07, Martin Fick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >--- "H. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can conditional markup be put a site-wide header
> > >> that achieves
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:55:30AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:41:12PM -0700, H. Fox wrote:
> >>>--- "H. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can conditional markup be put a site-wide header
> that ach
Em Terça 19 Junho 2007 18:13, H. Fox escreveu:
> On 6/19/07, Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > H. Fox wrote:
> > > On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> I guess we can leave
> > >> the existing implementation alone, and have all sites
> > >> customize to whatever they
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:41:12PM -0700, H. Fox wrote:
On 6/19/07, Martin Fick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- "H. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can conditional markup be put a site-wide header
that achieves
Look for a page named GroupHead
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:58:46AM -0700, Martin Fick wrote:
>
> While the directive may no longer work as a
> suppressor, certainly similar pagevariable base
> solutions could achieve this, couldn't they?
>
> (:if expr exists {$Group}.GroupHeader && equal
> {$:nogroupheader} :)
> (:include {$Gro
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:41:12PM -0700, H. Fox wrote:
> On 6/19/07, Martin Fick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >--- "H. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Can conditional markup be put a site-wide header
> >> that achieves
> >>
> >>Look for a page named GroupHeader in the
> >>current
On 6/19/07, Martin Fick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- "H. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Can conditional markup be put a site-wide header
> > that achieves
> >
> >Look for a page named GroupHeader in the
> >current group, if that exists we use it,
> >otherwise use "fallback"
On 6/19/07, Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H. Fox wrote:
> > On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I guess we can leave
> >> the existing implementation alone, and have all sites
> >> customize to whatever they wish as recipes.
> >
> > FWIW I would like to see it in the
H. Fox wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I guess we can leave
>> the existing implementation alone, and have all sites
>> customize to whatever they wish as recipes.
>
> FWIW I would like to see it in the core, mainly as a place for
> sitewide wikistyles. For (
--- "H. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > --- "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > Option 1: A page that acts as a "fallback
> > > > GroupHeader" when a group doesn't have one.
> > > > In this scenario, when viewing a page, we
> > > > first look for a page named GroupHead
On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I guess we can leave
> the existing implementation alone, and have all sites
> customize to whatever they wish as recipes.
FWIW I would like to see it in the core, mainly as a place for
sitewide wikistyles. For (just one) example, it's
> > --- "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Option 1: A page that acts as a "fallback
> > > GroupHeader" when a group doesn't have one.
> > > In this scenario, when viewing a page, we first
> > > look for a page named GroupHeader in the current group,
> > > if that exists we use
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:32:44PM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Em Segunda 18 Junho 2007 19:33, Martin Fick escreveu:
>
> > Don't get me wrong, I like groups, but it often seems
> > that they need customization (look at all the special
> > site organizational recipes), why not just make them
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:33:26PM -0700, Martin Fick wrote:
>
> --- "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Option 1: A page that acts as a "fallback
> > GroupHeader" when a group doesn't have one.
> > In this scenario, when viewing a page, we first
> > look for a page named Group
Em Segunda 18 Junho 2007 19:33, Martin Fick escreveu:
> Don't get me wrong, I like groups, but it often seems
> that they need customization (look at all the special
> site organizational recipes), why not just make them
> customizations in the first place? I realize that
> this is BIG change wit
--- "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Option 1: A page that acts as a "fallback
> GroupHeader" when
> a group doesn't have one. In this scenario, when
> viewing a page,
> we first look for a page named GroupHeader in the
> current group,
> if that exists we use it, otherwise we u
On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Option 1: A page that acts as a "fallback GroupHeader" when
> a group doesn't have one. In this scenario, when viewing a page,
> we first look for a page named GroupHeader in the current group,
> if that exists we use it, otherwise we
On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we introduce a separate (:nositeheader:) directive, then
> there's a question (and potential confusion) as to the sequence
> of processing -- should a group be able to suppress the site-wide
> header with (:nositeheader:), or should the
Em Segunda 18 Junho 2007 18:25, Patrick R. Michaud escreveu:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:20:52PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
> > Being as it's easy enough to add a skin section for something like an
> > allgroupheader, I'm not really convinced it needs to be in core. Seems
> > it should go in the ski
On 6/18/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:20:52PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
> > Being as it's easy enough to add a skin section for something like an
> > allgroupheader, I'm not really convinced it needs to be in core. Seems
> > it should go in the skins,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:20:52PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
> Being as it's easy enough to add a skin section for something like an
> allgroupheader, I'm not really convinced it needs to be in core. Seems
> it should go in the skins, like it already does.
Note that having a header in a skin is not
Being as it's easy enough to add a skin section for something like an
allgroupheader, I'm not really convinced it needs to be in core. Seems
it should go in the skins, like it already does.
Just my 2 cents. I already have something like this in my skin so it's
unlikely I would use it either way. S
>>> "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6/18/2007 2:54 PM >>>
Option 1: A page that acts as a "fallback GroupHeader" when
a group doesn't have one. In this scenario, when viewing a page,
we first look for a page named GroupHeader in the current group,
if that exists we use it, otherwise we u
FWIW, this can be taken to an extreme, as I have done ('cause I'm
extreme I guess ). See
http://parkcommons.ca/wiki/wiki.php?n=Help-Documentation.BrowserPageLayout.
I have the page laid out into 12 sections, many of which have both
defaults ("fallbacks" in Pm terminology) and over-rides resulti
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:00:06AM -0400, Ben Wilson wrote:
> Having combed through the recent message traffic, I see no clear
> consensus. Is there a PITS where the various options can be listed and
> voted/commented upon? There appears to be interest in _some_ site-wide
> group (I join that crowd
On 6/15/07, Scott Connard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
> > make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
> > core distribution, instead of being a
> > recipe/configuration change as
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:15:56AM +0200, Roman wrote:
>> On 6/17/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Site.DefaultGroupHeader
- to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
>>> This has some merit, instead of AllGroupHeader.
>> Please, n
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, David Spitzley wrote:
Any reason that the name couldn't be set as a config file variable?
I'm sure it'll be a variable. We're discussing the default name.
/C
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:56:11AM -0400, David Spitzley wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Dominique Faure wrote:
> > On 6/15/07, Hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >>
> >>> I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
> >>> tied to
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:15:56AM +0200, Roman wrote:
> On 6/17/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Site.DefaultGroupHeader
> > > - to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
> >
> > This has some merit, instead of AllGroupHeader.
>
> Please, no. If original sugges
Thanks Ben,
I was about to post something similar. There appears to be confusion
about what this page is supposed to do, which is
reflected in the proposed names.
Name What it seems to do?
DefaultGroupHeader -- A page to be used as group header when there
is
Having combed through the recent message traffic, I see no clear
consensus. Is there a PITS where the various options can be listed and
voted/commented upon? There appears to be interest in _some_ site-wide
group (I join that crowd). However, the obvious problem lies in how it
is named.
There is t
David
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6/15/2007 5:16 PM >>>
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Dominique Faure wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>>
>>> I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
>>> tied to the (:nogroupheader
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Roman wrote:
On 6/17/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Site.DefaultGroupHeader
- to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
This has some merit, instead of AllGroupHeader.
Please, no. If original suggestion to include AllGroupHeader or
SiteHe
On 6/17/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Site.DefaultGroupHeader
> > - to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
>
> This has some merit, instead of AllGroupHeader.
Please, no. If original suggestion to include AllGroupHeader or
SiteHeader in the core has anything
On Jun 17, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Kathryn Andersen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:06:35PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 08:14:47PM +0200,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Site.DefaultGroupHeader
>>> - to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
>>
>> This has
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:06:35PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 08:14:47PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Site.DefaultGroupHeader
> > - to be used if a group has no 'GroupHeader'
>
> This has some merit, instead of AllGroupHeader.
I like this much better
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 08:14:47PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, since this can of worms is already open, I'll throw out some more
or less crazy suggestions (that may *not* be internally consistent!):
Wiki.* or ThisWiki.*
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 08:14:47PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anyway, since this can of worms is already open, I'll throw out some more
> or less crazy suggestions (that may *not* be internally consistent!):
>
> Wiki.* or ThisWiki.*
> - Using 'Wiki' instead of 'Site'... (sigh,
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Tegan Dowling wrote:
Yes, Site.SiteHeader would be confusing. In fact, when you first posted
this, I thought you were adding something to or renaming the banner
area, where the logo is. I would not expect a SiteHeader page's content
to be automagically inserted at the top
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 11:06:45AM -0500, Jon Haupt wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:22:54AM +1000, Kathryn Andersen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:32:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > > > For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that
Hans wrote:
> Saturday, June 16, 2007, 9:47:17 PM, kjettil wrote:
>
>
>>> Perhaps an additional proposal:
>>> Site.SiteHeader may be used as an alternative for GroupHeader:
>>> if there is no GroupHeader page in a group, and there is
>>> a Site.SiteHeader page, then that page gets used. If there
Saturday, June 16, 2007, 9:47:17 PM, kjettil wrote:
>> Perhaps an additional proposal:
>> Site.SiteHeader may be used as an alternative for GroupHeader:
>> if there is no GroupHeader page in a group, and there is
>> a Site.SiteHeader page, then that page gets used. If there is a
>> GroupHeader pag
Hans wrote:
> Saturday, June 16, 2007, 7:58:49 PM, Sandy wrote:
>
>> I'd expect Site.SiteHeader to have stuff that's currently part of the
>> skin, and as such not easy to suppress. (Depending on one's view of skin
>> vs content.)
>>
> GroupHeader is in a way already a misnomer, as it defin
Saturday, June 16, 2007, 7:58:49 PM, Sandy wrote:
> I'd expect Site.SiteHeader to have stuff that's currently part of the
> skin, and as such not easy to suppress. (Depending on one's view of skin
> vs content.)
I have been using Site.PageHeader and Site.PageFooter
in Gemini, FixFlow and Triad sk
On Saturday 16 June 2007, Sandy wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
> >> On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>> I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
> >>
> >> For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
> >> would also pr
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
>> On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
>> For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
>> would also prefer Site.SiteHeader.
>
> Part of the advantage of AllGroupH
On 6/15/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:22:54AM +1000, Kathryn Andersen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:32:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
> > make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter p
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
would also prefer Site.SiteHeader.
Part of the advantage of
Just to say, a) I like the approach, and b) this feature has my vote.
Many thanks
Simon
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> In order to push 2.2.0 past beta into a stable release series,
> I'm going to write a series of short messages to the mailing
> list outlining individual features or changes that ar
--- "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
> make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
> core distribution, instead of being a
> recipe/configuration change as it is now. This
> would mean that by default every group would
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:22:54AM +1000, Kathryn Andersen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:32:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
> > make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
> > core distribution, instead of being a recipe/c
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:32:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
> make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
> core distribution, instead of being a recipe/configuration
> change as it is now. This would mean that by default
> eve
On 6/15/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
> On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
>
> For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
> would also prefer Site.SiteHeader.
Part o
On 6/15/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
> On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
>
> For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
> would also prefer Site.SiteHeader.
Part o
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:43:12PM -0400, The Editor wrote:
> On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I prefer 'Site.SiteHeader'.
>
> For what it's worth, I found AllGroupHeader counterintuitive, and
> would also prefer Site.SiteHeader.
Part of the advantage of AllGroupHeader is that it makes it
cleare
I prefer Site.SiteHeader - it's more intuitive. I don't see any
problem with renaming existing AllGroupHeader.
Roman
___
pmwiki-users mailing list
pmwiki-users@pmichaud.com
http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
+1 for Site.SiteHeader.
The Editor wrote:
> On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Dominique Faure wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/15/07, Hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> I wasn't planning on
On 6/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Dominique Faure wrote:
>
> > On 6/15/07, Hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >>
> >>> I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
> >>> tied to the (
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Dominique Faure wrote:
On 6/15/07, Hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
tied to the (:nogroupheader:). That might argue in
favor of Site.AllGroupHeader instead (and
On 6/15/07, Hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>
> > I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
> > tied to the (:nogroupheader:). That might argue in
> > favor of Site.AllGroupHeader instead (and there's
> > precedent with respect
On Friday 15 June 2007 12:22:55 pm Hans wrote:
> Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
> > tied to the (:nogroupheader:). That might argue in
> > favor of Site.AllGroupHeader instead (and there's
> > precedent with resp
Friday, June 15, 2007, 8:19:40 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> I wasn't planning on (:nositeheader:), leaving it
> tied to the (:nogroupheader:). That might argue in
> favor of Site.AllGroupHeader instead (and there's
> precedent with respect to Site.AllRecentChanges).
> It also increases the reg
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 11:47:57AM -0700, Martin Fick wrote:
> --- "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
> > make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
> > core distribution, instead of being a
> > recipe/configuration cha
--- "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For 2.2.0, I'm thinking that we should go ahead and
> make Site.SiteHeader and Site.SiteFooter part of the
> core distribution, instead of being a
> recipe/configuration change as it is now. This
> would mean that by default every group would
In order to push 2.2.0 past beta into a stable release series,
I'm going to write a series of short messages to the mailing
list outlining individual features or changes that are left
to be made, to invite commentary. Each such message will
have "2.2.0:" in the subject line, as this one does.
F
71 matches
Mail list logo
