Hi Blake!
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Blake Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/17/2008 2:25 PM PT:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Blake Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/17/2008 2:00 PM PT
Does anybody
blake, can you create an issue for updating version support format for
skinning
assign it to me (only if you want), add this class as a an attachement
and if you guys (from Oracle) decide that you can pre donate the regex for
determining the agent version, please add those too
I'll handle it in
or @agent ie and (version:6) and (version:8)
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Blake Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Glauco P. Gomes said the following On 4/18/2008 4:28 PM PT:
I think that I'm not expressed correctly, what I wanted to say was not
sequencial major versions.
Eg.:
@agent
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/19/2008 3:51 AM PT:
or @agent ie and (version:6) and (version:8)
This rule would never be true because it is asserting that the agent
must match IE and the version must match both 6.* and 8.*
-- Blake Sullivan
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Blake
:) yep, I forgot about the and
is or valid in those CSS rules?
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Blake Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/19/2008 3:51 AM PT:
or @agent ie and (version:6) and (version:8)
This rule would never be true because it is asserting
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/19/2008 10:58 AM PT:
:) yep, I forgot about the and
is or valid in those CSS rules?
No. That's what the comma is for.
-- Blake Sullivan
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Blake Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cristi Toth
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Andrew Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll be happy either way, but I think I now bend to the below
explanation of 5 == 5.0 from Jeanne's reasoning
FWIW, I actually agree with Jeanne's first opinion. :-)
That is, I think of 5 as 5.*. 5.0 as 5.0.*, etc.
Well that is difficult isn't it? Perhaps what I suggested a long time
back in my bug is best and allow regexp:
@agent blah and (matches-version: /someRegExp/)
example to match 6.x through 7.x:
@agent ie and (matches-version: /[67](\.\d)*/)
yeah it is harder to write, but then we can write it
Hi all,
The regex would be powerful though I'm afraid that it would not as
obvious or easy to use for non-technical designers/skinners.
I think something like this would be clearer:
@agent ie and (min-major-version: 6) and (min-minor-version: 1) and
(max-major-version: 6) {
/* styles for IE
Perhaps matching the full agent string is a bad idea. I'd hate to have
to parse many variations of things like:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b5)
Gecko/2008032620 Firefox/3.0b5
-Andrew
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The
I agree, full agent version matching is troublesome. With this approach:
@agent ie and (min-major-version: 6) and (min-minor-version: 1) and
(max-major-version: 6) {
/* styles for IE agent version 6.1 through 6.x (inclusive) */
}
We could go up to as many decimal tokens as we wish, e.g.
Could we leverage maven version parsing algorithms? Maven seems to be
able to parse a lot of crap :)
-Andrew
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Matt Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, full agent version matching is troublesome. With this approach:
@agent ie and (min-major-version: 6)
@agent id (version: 8-SNAPSHOT).. :)
Andrew Robinson wrote:
Could we leverage maven version parsing algorithms? Maven seems to be
able to parse a lot of crap :)
-Andrew
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Matt Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, full agent version matching is
That's fine with me. At this time, I'm really only concerned that we
have a flexible-enough API which has a CSS-like syntax to it.
Regards,
Matt
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Andrew Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could we leverage maven version parsing algorithms? Maven seems to be
@agent ie (versions: 4 5. 6)
where 4 = 4
and 5. = 5, 5.5, 5.6, 5.6.2 ...
and 5.5 = 5.5
and 5.5. = 5.5, 5.5.3 ...
Glauco P. Gomes
Scott O'Bryan escreveu:
@agent id (version: 8-SNAPSHOT).. :)
Andrew Robinson wrote:
Could we leverage maven version parsing algorithms? Maven seems to be
able to
Hmm, that's an interresting format.
Glauco P. Gomes wrote:
@agent ie (versions: 4 5. 6)
where 4 = 4
and 5. = 5, 5.5, 5.6, 5.6.2 ...
and 5.5 = 5.5
and 5.5. = 5.5, 5.5.3 ...
Glauco P. Gomes
Scott O'Bryan escreveu:
@agent id (version: 8-SNAPSHOT).. :)
Andrew Robinson wrote:
Could we
I like this too
does the list of space separated numbers comply to that CSS future spec we
were talking about?
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, that's an interresting format.
Glauco P. Gomes wrote:
@agent ie (versions: 4 5. 6)
where 4 = 4
OK, how about
option 5) the version feature is a String that matches the native
major.minor.whatever format of the browser's engine. If the browser's
engine uses non . for separating versions, . is used instead.
For matches, the * character is allowed in any version section.
For
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/18/2008 2:58 PM PT:
I like this too
does the list of space separated numbers comply to that CSS future
spec we were talking about?
I don't think it does.
-- Blake Sullivan
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Blake Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, how about
option 5)
I like option 5.
Andy
+1
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Andy Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Blake Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, how about
option 5)
I like option 5.
Andy
I have to admit it's +1 from me to option 5) :)
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Andrew Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Andy Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Blake Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, how
+1 to option 5
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Andrew Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Andy Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Blake Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, how about
option 5)
I like this option, but what hapens if the user wants to match the
version 5? (Only 5, not 5.5)
Glauco P. Gomes
Blake Sullivan escreveu:
OK, how about
option 5) the version feature is a String that matches the native
major.minor.whatever format of the browser's engine. If the
browser's
+1 if this includes multiple major versions (5, 6, 7)
Glauco P. Gomes
Blake Sullivan escreveu:
Glauco P. Gomes said the following On 4/18/2008 3:45 PM PT:
I like this option, but what hapens if the user wants to match the
version 5? (Only 5, not 5.5)
@agent ie and (version:5.0)
That will
It does:
@agent ie and (min-version:5) and (max-version:7) {
/* styles for all 5.*, 6.*, and 7.* versions of the IE agent versions */
}
Regards,
Matt
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Glauco P. Gomes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 if this includes multiple major versions (5, 6, 7)
Glauco P.
I think that I'm not expressed correctly, what I wanted to say was not
sequencial major versions.
Eg.:
@agent ie and (version: 6 and 8) {
/* styles for all 6.*, and 8.* versions of the IE agent versions */
}
Or this doesn't make sense?
Glauco P. Gomes
Matt Cooper escreveu:
It does:
Glauco P. Gomes said the following On 4/18/2008 4:28 PM PT:
I think that I'm not expressed correctly, what I wanted to say was not
sequencial major versions.
Eg.:
@agent ie and (version: 6 and 8) {
/* styles for all 6.*, and 8.* versions of the IE agent versions */
}
@agent ie and
+1
Glauco P. Gomes
Blake Sullivan escreveu:
Glauco P. Gomes said the following On 4/18/2008 4:28 PM PT:
I think that I'm not expressed correctly, what I wanted to say was not
sequencial major versions.
Eg.:
@agent ie and (version: 6 and 8) {
/* styles for all 6.*, and 8.*
OK, I have implemented and attached a Version class with the desired
behavior and tested that the following works as expected
System.out.println(toString: + new Version(5.0.3, *));
System.out.println(hashCode: + new Version(5.0.3, *).hashCode());
System.out.println(not equals: + new
+1. I really like the *.
Glauco P. Gomes wrote, On 4/18/2008 4:40 PM PT:
+1
Glauco P. Gomes
Blake Sullivan escreveu:
Glauco P. Gomes said the following On 4/18/2008 4:28 PM PT:
I think that I'm not expressed correctly, what I wanted to say was
not sequencial major versions.
Eg.:
@agent ie
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/16/2008 5:34 PM PT:
Hi Blake,
I wanted to be backwards compatible with what the XSS offered.
So I assumed that we's want just a list (not necessarily an interval)
And I picked the easiest to parse format.
But it's a good idea to follow a (possible) future
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Blake Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/16/2008 5:34 PM PT:
Hi Blake,
I wanted to be backwards compatible with what the XSS offered.
So I assumed that we's want just a list (not necessarily an interval)
And I picked the
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/16/2008 11:32 PM PT:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Blake Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/16/2008 5:34 PM PT:
Hi Blake,
I wanted to be backwards compatible with what the XSS
I would like to have:
1) Major and Major.Minor support
2) A syntax that is already supported by CSS @ styles in at least one
browser or as close as we can come
3) Range, greater than and less than if possible
#2 I think is really important so that skinning feels familiar to CSS
developers.
If
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to have:
1) Major and Major.Minor support
2) A syntax that is already supported by CSS @ styles in at least one
browser or as close as we can come
3) Range, greater than and less than if possible
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Andy Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to have:
1) Major and Major.Minor support
2) A syntax that is already supported by CSS @ styles in at least one
MyFaces Core and the Portlet Bridge have an API policy in that the API
is dictated by a Portlet Bridge spec. They don't have any guidelines in
IMPL though. I think the majority of the projects rely on the
committeers to review and test any additions.
But like Matthias said, it's a good idea
MyFaces Core and the Portlet Bridge have an API policy in that the API is
dictated by a Portlet Bridge spec. They don't have any guidelines in IMPL
yeah, spec impls (at least their APIs don't count).
It's time for a new lifecycle phase... :D
though. I think the majority of the projects rely
Jira is nice if you want some comments to be kept with the bug. This is
useful for commenting on tickets that do not have patches (and may not
for some time) so that when people finally do get around to it, they
have the information they need.
It is also good for documenting WHY something
I am happy to NOT!! have to deal with bugzilla on a day-base ...
(bad me, since bugzilla is true OS software)
-M
Scott
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
MyFaces Core and the Portlet Bridge have an API policy in that the API
is
dictated by a Portlet Bridge
Oh yeah, I agree with that.
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jira is nice if you want some comments to be kept with the bug. This is
useful for commenting on tickets that do not have patches (and may not for
some time) so
Hi guys,
You're right, I should have discussed the format before committing it.
I started fixing the issue using the format that was specified there...
(there weren't to many comments on that issue btw...)
During I was fixing it, I noticed that XSS suppported multiple versions,
so I adapted what
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html
@import url(loudvoice.css) aural;
so here are multiple groups of characters that show that spaces are
acceptable (import url and aural keywords in one bunch)
url(loudvoice.css)
shows that parenthesis with at least one argument is acceptable
@media
If we agree that we like the we like the media query syntax and that the
only issue is how to handle less than (as opposed the =) for the
max-version, then we can just collect up the proposals and pick one:
1) The verbose and explicit (max-version-less-than:8).
2) Define that for the version
So do I read this correctly that for #3, 8 means 8.x so a max-version
of 8 means any browser agent with a major version of 8 or less an not
even look at the minor version?
If so, I like 3 as well.
-Andrew
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Blake Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we agree that
Andrew Robinson said the following On 4/17/2008 12:35 PM PT:
So do I read this correctly that for #3, 8 means 8.x so a max-version
of 8 means any browser agent with a major version of 8 or less an not
even look at the minor version?
I'm proposing that the version feature reflect the best
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blake Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andrew Robinson said the following On 4/17/2008 12:35 PM PT:
So do I read this correctly that for #3, 8 means 8.x so a max-version
of 8 means any browser agent with a major version of 8 or less an not
even look at
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/17/2008 2:00 PM PT:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blake Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Robinson said the following On 4/17/2008 12:35 PM PT:
So do I read this correctly that for #3, 8 means 8.x so a
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/17/2008 2:00 PM PT:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blake Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Robinson said the following On 4/17/2008 12:35 PM PT:
So do I read this correctly that for #3, 8 means 8.x so a
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Blake Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/17/2008 2:00 PM PT
Does anybody KNOW how the browsers express their version exactly?
Because TrinidadAgent currently only has majorVersion and agentVersion
(the latter being an
I think if I saw max-version: 5, I'd think that all minor versions of 5
would work, too.
Otherwise, I would have written max-version: 5.0.
- Jeanne
Blake Sullivan wrote, On 4/17/2008 12:58 PM PT:
Andrew Robinson said the following On 4/17/2008 12:35 PM PT:
So do I read this correctly that
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/17/2008 2:25 PM PT:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Blake Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cristi Toth said the following On 4/17/2008 2:00 PM PT
Does anybody KNOW how the browsers express their version exactly?
Actually, I take that back. I think if I saw max-version: 5, I'd think 5.0.
The reason is people talk about versions, like, 2.0.0.10 and 2.0.0.4,
etc, so if I saw 2.0, I'd think 2.0.0.0
Otherwise I like #3.
Jeanne Waldman wrote, On 4/17/2008 2:43 PM PT:
I think if I saw max-version: 5, I'd
I'll be happy either way, but I think I now bend to the below
explanation of 5 == 5.0 from Jeanne's reasoning
In the future we could add:
@agent ie and (major-version: 5)
where only the major-version is compared.
-Andrew
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Jeanne Waldman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,
I finally added browser version support in skinning, but using a different
format than first suggested.
As we needed to support multiple browsers, each with multiple versions, I
have chosen to use this format:
@ agent ie 5 6 7, gecko,safari {}
So each agent definition separated by
Cristi,
I think that we should follow a subset of the syntax of CSS Media
Queries http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/ for consistency as
this is a CSS file. If there are other standard syntaxes for CSS, we
can use one of those instead.
Your rule below could be expressed in such a
Hi Blake,
I wanted to be backwards compatible with what the XSS offered.
So I assumed that we's want just a list (not necessarily an interval)
And I picked the easiest to parse format.
But it's a good idea to follow a (possible) future standard.
I had a quick look over it's syntax, but not
58 matches
Mail list logo
