Zikula Community

• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Registered User
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 30, 2004
  • Posts: 16

  Posted: Oct 23, 2004 - 05:44 AM

  I have to say, I really like this new version of PostNuke. Except for the Type Tool. And I have to say, I almost fell off my chair when I saw that it used the font tag. :shock:
  
  You guys went to an awful lot of trouble to make the the system more standards compliant (and good job BTW) and leaving plenty of room for me to throw in my own hacks and just go over the top with that. Just seems to me like a really obvious thing to have overlooked. Especially since the font tag uses the style attribute! Wouldn't it have made more sense to put the style attribute in the "P" tag and dump "font" all together?
  
  Granted I'm not a developer, but I've got a basic understanding of PHP & MySQL, and I'm proficient with javascript (but no whiz by anyone's standards). However, I'm pretty darned good with CSS, and there's no way I'd ever allow that kind of code on my site.
  
  This isn't just meant as a criticism but I can't imagine where to try and offer to create a solution.

  • 
  •  
• Simon
  
  

  • Rank: Legend
  • Registered: Dec 11, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 11674

  Posted: Oct 23, 2004 - 07:23 AM

  TypeTool is a 3rd party editor, and as such the PN Team cant check that it is standards compliant. You will find that now the visual editor is modular, more and more editors will become available. Hopefully one that is standards compliant will soon be available.
  
  --
  itbegins.co.uk - Zikula Consulting
  
  birtwistle.me.uk - Personal Blog
  
  
  Please read the Support Guide

  • 
  •  
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Registered User
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 30, 2004
  • Posts: 16

  Posted: Oct 23, 2004 - 08:07 AM

  Oh wow, I didn't realize that. It was in with the original download so I assumed it was part of the core modules. My bad
  
  Where would I look to find out who's it is? I would like to re-direct my "rant" in their direction rather than yours ;)

  • 
  •  
• Simon
  
  

  • Rank: Legend
  • Registered: Dec 11, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 11674

  Posted: Oct 23, 2004 - 08:42 AM

  I always look at google...
  
  
  http://www.fontlab.com/html/typetool.html
  
  --
  itbegins.co.uk - Zikula Consulting
  
  birtwistle.me.uk - Personal Blog
  
  
  Please read the Support Guide

  • 
  •  
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Registered User
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 30, 2004
  • Posts: 16

  Posted: Oct 23, 2004 - 01:16 PM

  And here I was using google as my default mail client too :shock:

  • 
  •  
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Softmore
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 135

  Posted: Oct 27, 2004 - 04:27 AM

  You can download a module that lets you use TinyMCE, a fully XHTML compliant visual editor. It seems to have problems with some modules, though. Search the forums, there is a link somewhere.

  • 
  •  
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Helper
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 825

  Posted: Oct 27, 2004 - 04:44 AM

  It depends on which version of XHTML you want to support.
  
  I like the tag, because not everything is a paragraph. What if you want to change fonts in mid sentince and still want to be backwards compatible.
  
  Anyways, I understand your pain...
  
  Sometimes these tools used some really screwed up standards.

  • 
  •  
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Registered User
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 30, 2004
  • Posts: 16

  Posted: Oct 27, 2004 - 05:57 AM

  iammaxus

  You can download a module that lets you use TinyMCE, a fully XHTML compliant visual editor. It seems to have problems with some modules, though. Search the forums, there is a link somewhere.

  
  
  Thanks, I have seen mention of it (after my original post) and just googled for the link to it. :D
  
  

  mgp7419

  It depends on which version of XHTML you want to support.
  
  I like the tag, because not everything is a paragraph. What if you want to change fonts in mid sentince and still want to be backwards compatible.

  
  
  I would disagree. I wouldn't waste my time going so completely backwards. Netscape 4.x covers your basic text styles. And anyone using a browser older than that, is probably used to seeing very "plain" content at this point and would be ok with that otherwise they would've upgraded their browser.
  
  And as an FYI, You can use formatting attributes in more than just the

  tag. Normally you would use the tag with the appropriate attributes to change something mid sentance. If for some reason you cannot use the span tag, you can even make a

  tag (and offhand, I would say just about any tag for that matter) work like a tag by using the display attribute combined with your text formatting attributes(and that technique will work in netscape4.x).
  
  And now comes my really big rant:
  
  I think the biggest hurdle is that so many developers who make these "programs/scripts/modules" don't fully comprehend CSS and the different ways it can be used and how exactly one maintains backwards compatibility with older poorly implemented browsers like Netscape 4.x. And to be clear, that's not just slamming of developers, it's just the way things are. As a developer, formating/design/layout of the content is really not your focus. Your only real concern (as a developer) when it comes to those things is that I (as the designer) have the freedom to control visual elements without interfering with the program/script/module. The fact that you (an obviously proficient developer) didn't know how to make a format change mid-sentance and how long its taken CMS's to leave behind tables and allow table-less design would seem to support that.
  
  I would suggest that there needs to be more discussion between the designers and developers on some of these things. An open recognition that both have different roles to play and those roles are equally important and inter-dependant to some extent.

  • 
  •  
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Helper
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 825

  Posted: Oct 27, 2004 - 06:31 AM

  I disagree with that point of view... I dont use CSS to any great extent... and my pages are fully functional with both browsers, and are backwards compatable to browsers before 5. CSS is really nice, and XHTML is ok... But honestly I worry about XHTML's portability. I dont want to allow people to parse my documents easily. In addition, I perfer the developers to spend more time working on new functionality then worring if its XHTML compatable.
  
  If we are going to support styles, then why dont we go to the full extent and use XML pages that are transformed with XSLT. My main point is that there is a line between functionality and overkill, and though I support improvements in design, I would personally perfer resources beign spent on normalizing hyperlinks, removing the reliance of modules on displaying data and functionality, or extending Xanthia to support more things.

  • 
  •  
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Registered User
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 30, 2004
  • Posts: 16

  Posted: Oct 30, 2004 - 04:15 AM

  If ya wanna get into the "CSS suX0rs" debate, ok ;). I'll stand by my statement about backwards compatibility. Obviously, you need to go farther back than IE 5, and my statement reflected that.
  
  

  mgp7419

  CSS is really nice, and XHTML is ok... But honestly I worry about XHTML's portability. I dont want to allow people to parse my documents easily.

  
  
  No offense meant here but that sounds more like a total cop out, unless you wanna throw out a real and specific concern on portability, I'm not going there.
  
  

  mgp7419

  If we are going to support styles, then why dont we go to the full extent and use XML pages that are transformed with XSLT

  The purpose of XHTML was to bring HTML inline with the XML standard. So you tell me why you aren't doing that.
  
  

  mgp7419

  My main point is that there is a line between functionality and overkill, and though I support improvements in design, I would personally perfer resources beign spent on normalizing hyperlinks, removing the reliance of modules on displaying data and functionality, or extending Xanthia to support more things.

  
  
  I would agree with you about developers not wasting resources on making pages XHMTL compliant. I just disagree with you about how that concept is implemented. Common sense, I would think, tells you that you should not be dealing with front end design improvements at all, and those facets should be turned over to a designer.
  
  That was my point. That too many developers who make these "programs/scripts/modules" (more so outside the PN community) take the stance that it's a waste of their time, and instead of turning over that facet to or getting input from a designer, the developer(s) just makes it as standards compliant as their personal knowledge allows it to be.
  
  I could go on in some length about my perspective as the "Technical Outreach Coordinator" for a national non-profit who takes consulting jobs on the side for extra cash. But that attitude of "I got better things to worry about so I'm not going to bother with it at all" attitude offends me on so many levels, it's not funny. It's just soo......unprofessional and icky.

  • 
  •  
•  
•  

Users on-line

• mesteele101

This list is based on users active over the last 60 minutes.