You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Search options
Paul wrote:The board looks the same (or close enough) in the following browsers
- IE5Win
- IE6Win
- Gecko (Firefox, Moz, Nutscrape)
- Opera
- Safari 1.2
- IE5.2Mac (subject to further testing)
It's good to know you're testing it thoroughly!
Paul wrote:Styling tags sounds fine in practice but it has it's problems. The same tag can take on different styles in different parts of the board. That means using descendant selectors which requires id's or classes on higher level containers. And what if you have the same tag within a container at the same level eg. <div><p></p><p></p></div> and you want to style the <p>'s differently, you require one of them to have a class.
Yes, I would agree with that.. the classic example would be to have alternate lines in a table. I was more concerned with the sheer quantity of classes/id I would need to write styles for. I was hoping for a substantially boiled down version, with more consistency / intuitity (?sp) with the tag names.
paul wrote:Of course it can be simplified considerably but you end up with a design that is no more flexible than the current version. You also end up with a design which is a compromise; if you want everything to appear exactly as intended then you need to the markup and classes/id's to work with.
I would say if the styles were simplified, you would end up with a design that was less flexible. But then how much flexibility does one need? I think that the current level of flexibilty is overwhelming and unworkable.
paul wrote:You will however be pleased to know that I have spent the last week rewriting the css and making alterations to the XHTML which will hopefully make the design even more flexible and simplify the css.
I'll look forward to seeing this! Is there a public RCS repository somewhere? I would be willing to help with this apsect if you like.
The classes / ids I'm thinking of are basically along the lines of existing HTML markup -- i.e. H1-H6 for headings.
for example:
H1 -- can be for the page heading / site title &c. (as is already done)
H2 and THEAD TH -- can be for subheadings / table heads
H3 and TBODY TH -- can be for forum topics and subsubheadings
... and so on.
but you get the idea. Obviously there are things that need separate classes, e.g. left/right floats, div's containing the header / navbar / forum, topic and post levels / body / footers, but not too many. I don't think that this would be much of a rewrite from the PHP side, since the XHTML is already well formed, but from the CSS side, the effort could be a bit more substatial.
This would make skinning the whole site with a simple stylesheet much easier. I also wonder what the board looks like in less-educated browsers like IE (some people use it -- often without realising!). Does anyone have an estimate for how many classes and ids there are in the current development code?
Hi there.
I've just been messing around with the development version of punbb. It's great to see that empty tables are no longer being used as spacing devices! It looks like a great piece of software. I chose it over phpbb2 because I could rewrite the authentication system more easily. Our BB needs to have a link to a separate authentication server to keep users' usernames and passwords consistent. I found that in punbb this was easy to do.
On that note: is it possible to distill the CSS classes/ids down to a smaller list? Trying to write a theme/skin from scratch is impossible. I understand that all the different classes and IDs make the whole thing infinitely more customisable, but so many?
I would propose having far fewer, and relying on the html types more. The ones that are kept should be consistent, and easy to understand the meaning of.
I've spent the morning trying to reskin the development version, but haven't achevied any good results.
Anyway, keep up the good work! You can see the board we are using at http://forum.bytemark.co.uk .
Patrick
Posts found: 3