On 20/05/14 23:05, Daniel Friesen wrote:
On 2014-05-20, 3:48 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
Out of curiosity, what are your reasons for
advocating lowercase skin
names over the standard camelcase format used throughout the rest of
I included those in my bullet points.
* The skinname you require is the same one assigned to $wgValidSkins
and set on $wgDefaultSkin and set on $skinname, and $stylepath.
* For all skins using the old autoload pattern the assets directory
remains them same, so nothing has to be re-cached.
But that sounds more like an oversight with the autoloader
implementation and class setup than an actual reason why it would be
good practice to use lowercase. Was there a particular design reason to
set those up to be that way?
There's also a third reason.
There are 3 names for a skin containing two words:
* Foo Bar
Foo Bar is exposed to users in the interface as the human readable name.
And foobar is exposed in &useskin= $wgDefaultSkin and the current
directory asset structure, in essence it IS the canonical name of the skin.
FooBar however generally isn't exposed anywhere. It exists exclusively
for things like skin class names like SkinFooBar and optionally some
filenames, both of which are internal to the skin.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/
Two of those also apply to extensions in general - FooBar and Foo Bar.
Has this sort of inconsistency between name presentations ever posed a
problem there? And with skins in particular, why would the internal
handling of the skin name be coupled to the filename at all? And why the
case-sensitivity, especially when not all platforms that mw supports
even use case-sensitive filesystems? Is this just a holdover from the
Sorry for all the questions, but this all seems quite odd, and I never
really had the opportunity to put much thought into it before.