Re: More theme ideas for Roller 5.1...
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Glen Mazza 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. 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. 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. 3.) Bring in the Rolling theme (https://code.google.com/a/ > apache-extras.org/p/roller-extras/wiki/Themes) from Roller-Extras, I've > been using a customized version of it since 2005 ( > http://web-gmazza.rhcloud.com/blog/) and superblogger Arun Gupta of > Sun/Oracle also used it for many years. It's an unapologetically > non-responsive theme with wide columns good for blogging code, it's easy to > modify and change the right side column heading topics (mine are different > from the basic theme), and doesn't use any advanced CSS/JS libraries--it's > easy to customize. It will also attract people who would otherwise use > Basic/Dual-Theme but don't wish to be saddled with an unworking mobile > theme, or (like me) don't even want to try to have their blog entries > rendered for smart phones. > > (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.) > 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. As an alternative to #2 and #3, what we can do is remove the mobile > capability from the Basic theme so it works OOTB, and add to the user's > guide how to create a dual-theme Theme, bringing in Shelan's beta-quality > mobile theme viewer in that article (or just using the gaurav theme as the > mobile viewer). > Yeah, think that is better than renaming Basic. Let's do that if I decide it is too much of a PITA to fix Basic's mobile features. - Dave
Re: More theme ideas for Roller 5.1...
On 07/04/2014 10:31 AM, Dave wrote: On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Glen Mazza 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 or 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 entry in the theme.xml to clear up any confusion.) Regards, Glen
Re: More theme ideas for Roller 5.1...
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Glen Mazza wrote: > On 07/04/2014 10:31 AM, Dave wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Glen Mazza 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 or 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
Re: More theme ideas for Roller 5.1...
On 07/05/2014 03:00 PM, Dave wrote: 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. +1, that will work, "Basic" and "Basic-Mobile". I'll hold off on including Rolling for the time being. Glen
Re: More theme ideas for Roller 5.1...
On 07/05/2014 03:00 PM, Dave wrote: 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. Hi Dave, I don't know what happened, but I can't duplicate Kyle's problem either: http://www.nailedtothex.org/roller/kyle/entry/nested-list-element-issue-of1, but noticed another one. I noticed however, in his example, he's making a a direct child of a but according to the HTML 5 (and probably earlier standards), only a can be a child of an , i.e., he should have embedded that within an . With a ul as an immediate child of an ol, the behavior would probably be undefined, even if most browsers (and our Mobile theme) support it. So I guess we can forget about that issue. Anyway, for this blog entry. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Good HTML: First Item Second Item Third Item Fourth Item Fifth Item Sixth Item Bad HTML: First Item Second Item Third Item Fourth Item Fifth Item Sixth Item Both "good" and "bad" HTML work fine, as mentioned earlier, but the real problem is that the paragraph at the top ends up getting truncated after the first line, there's no word wrapping, text is lost. If I remove the enclosing element around the paragraph the text renders fine in mobile though. So that's the only thing I can see needing fixing with Mobile. Regards, Glen
Re: More theme ideas for Roller 5.1...
Problem mentioned below reproduced with both Chrome and Firefox, BTW. Glen On 07/05/2014 06:16 PM, Glen Mazza wrote: Both "good" and "bad" HTML work fine, as mentioned earlier, but the real problem is that the paragraph at the top ends up getting truncated after the first line, there's no word wrapping, text is lost. If I remove the enclosing element around the paragraph the text renders fine in mobile though. So that's the only thing I can see needing fixing with Mobile. Regards, Glen
Re: More theme ideas for Roller 5.1...
If you are embedding html elements in entries, jqm might try to enhance them, and you will need to experiment some what, you could try to disable the enhancement on the embeded html using something like data-enhance=false. On 5 July 2014 23:22, Glen Mazza wrote: > Problem mentioned below reproduced with both Chrome and Firefox, BTW. > > Glen > > On 07/05/2014 06:16 PM, Glen Mazza wrote: > >> Both "good" and "bad" HTML work fine, as mentioned earlier, but the real >> problem is that the paragraph at the top ends up getting truncated after >> the first line, there's no word wrapping, text is lost. If I remove the >> enclosing element around the paragraph the text renders fine in mobile >> though. So that's the only thing I can see needing fixing with Mobile. >> >> Regards, >> Glen >> >> >
Re: More theme ideas for Roller 5.1...
Thanks for the tip. I would always be embedding HTML elements because I blog in HTML. (I don't use the Xinha editor.) It would be odd if JQuery mobile couldn't handle that. Glen On 07/06/2014 05:28 AM, Greg Huber wrote: If you are embedding html elements in entries, jqm might try to enhance them, and you will need to experiment some what, you could try to disable the enhancement on the embeded html using something like data-enhance=false. On 5 July 2014 23:22, Glen Mazza wrote: Problem mentioned below reproduced with both Chrome and Firefox, BTW. Glen On 07/05/2014 06:16 PM, Glen Mazza wrote: Both "good" and "bad" HTML work fine, as mentioned earlier, but the real problem is that the paragraph at the top ends up getting truncated after the first line, there's no word wrapping, text is lost. If I remove the enclosing element around the paragraph the text renders fine in mobile though. So that's the only thing I can see needing fixing with Mobile. Regards, Glen
