You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> on 2005/10/26 12:15:48 UTC
Re: svn commit: r328600
- /forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.themer/resources/themes/pelt/css/leather-dev.css
El mié, 26-10-2005 a las 12:08 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux escribió:
> Thorsten Scherler a écrit :
>
> >El mié, 26-10-2005 a las 10:45 +0100, Ross Gardler escribió:
> >
> >
> >>cdupoirieux@apache.org wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Author: cdupoirieux
> >>>Date: Wed Oct 26 02:07:43 2005
> >>>New Revision: 328600
> >>>
> >>>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=328600&view=rev
> >>>Log:
> >>>grouplogo and projectlogo become logo.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Doesn't this prevent us from having different CSS for each of the logo's?
> >>
> >>Or is there other containing divs we can use to uniquely identify each?
> >>
> >>
> >
> ><forrest:hook name="grouplogo">
> > <forrest:contract name="logo"/>
> ></forrest:hook>
> >
> >Like this it is possible but Ross is right.
> >
> >
> Do you mean that the contract should have an argument to define the div
> class which - by default - would be logo ?
>
> For instance :
>
> <forrest:contract name="branding-logo">
> <forrest:properties contract="branding-logo">
> <forrest:property
> name="branding-logo-name">Forrest</forrest:property>
> ...
> </forrest:properties>
> </forrest:contract>
>
> gives :
>
> <div class="logo">
> <img...>
> </div>
>
> and
>
> <forrest:contract name="branding-logo">
> <forrest:properties contract="branding-logo">
> <forrest:property
> name="branding-logo-name">Forrest</forrest:property>
> ...
> <forrest:property
> name="branding-logo-hook">*my_own_css_div*</forrest:property>
> </forrest:properties>
> </forrest:contract>
>
> gives :
>
> <div class="*my_own_css_div*">
> <img...>
> </div>
>
> I can make the change if you like.
> Cyriaque,
>
Jeje, I did not meant you gave the right answer to Ross. Looking on your
proposal I like it but on the other hand are we not going to mix
concerns here? Or is it more freedom for the designer?
salu2
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: svn commit:
r328600 - /forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.themer/resources/themes/pelt/css/leather-dev.css
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
El mié, 26-10-2005 a las 12:24 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux escribió:
> Thorsten Scherler a écrit :
...
> >Jeje, I did not meant you gave the right answer to Ross. Looking on your
> >proposal I like it but on the other hand are we not going to mix
> >concerns here?
> >
> Sure we are ! - at least I think we are and I realise this reading my
> own text...
>
> > Or is it more freedom for the designer?
> >
> >
> No I don't think it add any possibility to the designer, it may even
> suppress some just like the following which is the standard pelt ft :
>
> <div class="logo">
> <Project logo ...>
> <Group logo ....>
> </div>
>
> So, let's stay as it is, right ?
+1
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
Re: svn commit: r328600 - /forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.themer/resources/themes/pelt/css/leather-dev.css
Posted by Cyriaque Dupoirieux <Cy...@pcotech.fr>.
Thorsten Scherler a écrit :
>El mié, 26-10-2005 a las 12:08 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux escribió:
>
>
>>Thorsten Scherler a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>>El mié, 26-10-2005 a las 10:45 +0100, Ross Gardler escribió:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>cdupoirieux@apache.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Author: cdupoirieux
>>>>>Date: Wed Oct 26 02:07:43 2005
>>>>>New Revision: 328600
>>>>>
>>>>>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=328600&view=rev
>>>>>Log:
>>>>>grouplogo and projectlogo become logo.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Doesn't this prevent us from having different CSS for each of the logo's?
>>>>
>>>>Or is there other containing divs we can use to uniquely identify each?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>><forrest:hook name="grouplogo">
>>> <forrest:contract name="logo"/>
>>></forrest:hook>
>>>
>>>Like this it is possible but Ross is right.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Do you mean that the contract should have an argument to define the div
>>class which - by default - would be logo ?
>>
>>For instance :
>>
>> <forrest:contract name="branding-logo">
>> <forrest:properties contract="branding-logo">
>> <forrest:property
>> name="branding-logo-name">Forrest</forrest:property>
>> ...
>> </forrest:properties>
>> </forrest:contract>
>>
>>gives :
>>
>> <div class="logo">
>> <DEFANGED_IMG...>
>> </div>
>>
>>and
>>
>> <forrest:contract name="branding-logo">
>> <forrest:properties contract="branding-logo">
>> <forrest:property
>> name="branding-logo-name">Forrest</forrest:property>
>> ...
>> <forrest:property
>> name="branding-logo-hook">*my_own_css_div*</forrest:property>
>> </forrest:properties>
>> </forrest:contract>
>>
>>gives :
>>
>> <div class="*my_own_css_div*">
>> <DEFANGED_IMG...>
>> </div>
>>
>>I can make the change if you like.
>>Cyriaque,
>>
>>
>>
>
>Jeje, I did not meant you gave the right answer to Ross. Looking on your
>proposal I like it but on the other hand are we not going to mix
>concerns here?
>
Sure we are ! - at least I think we are and I realise this reading my
own text...
> Or is it more freedom for the designer?
>
>
No I don't think it add any possibility to the designer, it may even
suppress some just like the following which is the standard pelt ft :
<div class="logo">
<Project logo ...>
<Group logo ....>
</div>
So, let's stay as it is, right ?
Cyriaque,
>salu2
>
>thorsten
>
>"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
>Hey you (Pink Floyd)
>
>
>
>