476
edits
AniDB talk:Page layout: Difference between revisions
Nothing really relevant given current state of markup generation
Epoximator (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(Nothing really relevant given current state of markup generation) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* should g_section be the only allowed element (first level childs) inside #layout-content (except h1)? | * should g_section be the only allowed element (first level childs) inside #layout-content (except h1)? | ||
::Pretty much. There can be multiples though, and it's not a hard rule (forms etc could usefully live outside and around sections). | ::Pretty much. There can be multiples though, and it's not a hard rule (forms etc could usefully live outside and around sections). | ||
:* general vertical margins. g_actionlist/etc. is subs of g_section? | |||
:::Vertical margins are a function of layout and should not be presented in the markup at all. | :::Vertical margins are a function of layout and should not be presented in the markup at all. | ||
:::was thinking '#layout-content .g_section+.g_section' here | ::::was thinking '#layout-content .g_section+.g_section' here | ||
:::::Sections are for sections, not all the pages are using them very well atm though as I just swapped them in for hr without much fiddling. | |||
* should g_navlist and g_numonpage be in one (parent) div? | * should g_navlist and g_numonpage be in one (parent) div? | ||
::Not just because. | ::Not just because. | ||
* should g_jumplist be inside the table div? | * should g_jumplist be inside the table div? | ||
::What is a 'table div'? They should be in the same section where appropriate. | ::What is a 'table div'? They should be in the same section where appropriate. | ||
::probably meant 'table be inside a div', which it is atm. we want to kill this table too, i guess | :::probably meant 'table be inside a div', which it is atm. we want to kill this table too, i guess | ||
=== Text visibility === | === Text visibility === | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
* v_neg (red) | * v_neg (red) | ||
::These tread on the toes of both <code><nowiki><font></nowiki></code> level decoration and <code><nowiki><em></nowiki></code> level meaning. Classes are about what something is, not how it should be presented. Marking pos/neg is a different issue from 'text', and the current solution is not ideal. | ::These tread on the toes of both <code><nowiki><font></nowiki></code> level decoration and <code><nowiki><em></nowiki></code> level meaning. Classes are about what something is, not how it should be presented. Marking pos/neg is a different issue from 'text', and the current solution is not ideal. | ||
:::the styles in () are just current values based on the old layout: | |||
::the styles in () are just current values based on the old layout: | :::<code><nowiki><font color="red"><b>important text</b></font> -> <span(or li/td/whatever) class="v_high local_name">important text</span></nowiki></code> | ||
<code><nowiki><font color="red"><b>important text</b></font> -> <span(or li/td/whatever) class="v_high local_name">important text</span></nowiki></code> | :::so 'v_high' is just to mark it as important, not red bold (and you can choose to ignore it and just use local_name). i'm still not saying this is the right way, though. at least not the naming. (g_important/g_note/g_ano_ne etc.) | ||
::so 'v_high' is just to mark it as important, not red bold (and you can choose to ignore it and just use local_name). i'm still not saying this is the right way, though. at least not the naming. (g_important/g_note/g_ano_ne etc.) | ::::Exactly, _high _med and _low seem to be based around the current presentation of bits of text rather than the actual intended function. Markup needs to be presenting the idea that some block 'is a warning that dire things might happen if you click that button', not that the block 'is be really visible and stands out lots'. | ||
=== Text content === | === Text content === | ||
| Line 37: | Line 38: | ||
* c_list (links, resources) | * c_list (links, resources) | ||
::The c_ prefix names were for collation purposes only - marked in table headers. There seems no reason for filling the namespace just because. | ::The c_ prefix names were for collation purposes only - marked in table headers. There seems no reason for filling the namespace just because. | ||
::this was for alignment in tables, yes. | :::this was for alignment in tables, yes. | ||
::::Alignment is a layout concern, and has nothing to do with collation. | |||
=== Text alignment === | === Text alignment === | ||
| Line 51: | Line 53: | ||
* ... | * ... | ||
::Alignment and text positioning are functions of layout, not markup. Using anything like this is just as stupid as doing <code><nowiki><span class="bold">hi mum</span></nowiki></code> etc. | ::Alignment and text positioning are functions of layout, not markup. Using anything like this is just as stupid as doing <code><nowiki><span class="bold">hi mum</span></nowiki></code> etc. | ||
::almost, the idea was 'easy/default behavoir' so you don't have to specify every bit and piece in css. but it's based on failed laziness, i guess. (is using align and valign better? i wouldn't think so) | :::almost, the idea was 'easy/default behavoir' so you don't have to specify every bit and piece in css. but it's based on failed laziness, i guess. (is using align and valign better? i wouldn't think so) | ||
::::Actually, align="" etc *is* better, as then at least you're using well defined HTML layout syntax for layout purposes, rather than inventing your own terms and hiding everything behind a needless layer of indirection. Thinking pulling shit like this is doing a css rewrite is as dumb as replacing every tag with a div with the tagname in the class and using css like div.span { display: inline; } etc. | |||
=== Table types === | === Table types === | ||
| Line 59: | Line 62: | ||
* container (not inner, for layout only, f.ex. vote section @ anime page) | * container (not inner, for layout only, f.ex. vote section @ anime page) | ||
::Don't want is right. All these kinds of tables just want eradicating. | ::Don't want is right. All these kinds of tables just want eradicating. | ||
::like i thought. it's not that easy to eradicate, though. at least when you don't know any good css solutions for them. show me how and i'll do it, see () | :::like i thought. it's not that easy to eradicate, though. at least when you don't know any good css solutions for them. show me how and i'll do it, see () | ||
::::I made an anime page mockup like a year ago with no layout tables. Wasn't quite clear though - nothing wrong with table inside table in the rare cases it's actually wanted (anime page and mylist) - but don't need any of these classes. Any <code>table.inner</code> is just a bad way of saying <code>table table</code> - and any handle on these will generally want to be given in a context specific way: <code>#layout-content div.anime_table table.episodes table.files</code> and such. | |||
=== Elements === | === Elements === | ||
{| align="center" border="1" | {| align="center" border="1" | ||
| Line 103: | Line 108: | ||
unless g_*box is possible | unless g_*box is possible | ||
::Error handling needs redoing, no point fiddling till then. | ::Error handling needs redoing, no point fiddling till then. | ||
::then i'll redo it, just tell me how. and markup can still be defined | :::then i'll redo it, just tell me how. and markup can still be defined | ||
::::Currently exp returns either (number, message) pairs or just numbers from the db backend, and then the front end sometimes looks at the number, sometimes generates its own errors, and variously tries to print them in some kind of output page which varies from script to script. It's a total mess, but not one that is in need of urgent fixing. Leave it alone - really not anything monkey patching is going to make better. If anidb ever moves over to error handling that actually has some plan and direction, can fiddle with the output then. | |||
=== Other === | === Other === | ||
| Line 109: | Line 115: | ||
** pause in lists, f.ex. between normal eps and special eps | ** pause in lists, f.ex. between normal eps and special eps | ||
:::This is a function of layout, not markup. No empty rows should exist for layout purposes. | :::This is a function of layout, not markup. No empty rows should exist for layout purposes. | ||
:::agreed | ::::agreed | ||
* td.fill, width/height 100% | * td.fill, width/height 100% | ||
::This is a function of layout, not markup. | ::This is a function of layout, not markup. | ||
* .g_even, .g_odd | * .g_even, .g_odd | ||
::With IE7, I think _even is now redundant. | ::With IE7, I think _even is now redundant. | ||
::_even is part of the code logic atm. (that's why) | :::_even is part of the code logic atm. (that's why) | ||
* .field, .value (in definition lists) | * .field, .value (in definition lists) | ||
::These seem redundant. | ::These seem redundant. | ||
| Line 123: | Line 129: | ||
* div.g_image | * div.g_image | ||
::Is this actually needed? | ::Is this actually needed? | ||
::taken from "new" anime page | :::taken from "new" anime page | ||
::::That's not an answer. | |||
* div.g_end (used to mark the end of content, used for clear: right, maybe not needed) | * div.g_end (used to mark the end of content, used for clear: right, maybe not needed) | ||
::::Forgot to say, this shouldn't exist. --[[User:Rar|Rar]] | |||
* .state (creq state) | * .state (creq state) | ||
::This isn't a global meaning. | ::This isn't a global meaning. | ||
* li.here (inside g_navlist, currently selected) | * li.here (inside g_navlist, currently selected) | ||
::This isn't a global meaning. | ::This isn't a global meaning. --[[User:Rar|Rar]] | ||
== Stuff == | == Stuff == | ||
| Line 135: | Line 143: | ||
* creq | * creq | ||
* message | * message | ||
::These don't seem globally relevant. | |||
=== File states === | |||
* fs_ok | * fs_ok | ||
* fs_invalid | * fs_invalid | ||
| Line 141: | Line 150: | ||
* fs_generic | * fs_generic | ||
* fs_lame | * fs_lame | ||
::These | ::These are not global meanings, and the naming scheme is confusing. | ||
=== Section names (pre) === | === Section names (pre) === | ||
follows page names mostly (?show=x) | follows page names mostly (?show=x) | ||
:Yup, section prefixes should reflect page (and code generation) group. | |||
=== Field names === | === Field names === | ||
follows db definition mostly | follows db definition mostly | ||
:Should follow headings, not any internal db naming scheme for fields and crap. | |||
== Page types== | == Page types== | ||