Tels wrote:
Users can't edit [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css]], but that doesn't mean all the CSS has to go there. You could use templates (or at least one template) to include user-editable CSS from elsewhere.
Except that you can't insert CSS into a template unless the style tag gets explicitely enabled. (and last I checked thats f.i. not possible on meta)
This is simply not true. Go to [[Template:CSS specificpurpose]] and type
.specificpurpose { border: 1px solid black; background: red; }
Then go to [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css]] and insert
@import "/w/index.php?title=Template:CSS_specificpurpose&action=raw&ctype=text/css"
and voilà, the template is user-editable CSS.
However, I do not actually advocate this practice. I don't think CSS is suitable for editing by the average user; it should be reserved for admins who (1) know to leave it alone if they don't know what they're doing, and (2) can ensure project-wide layout consistency.
In any event, whats the difference between using:
class="foo"
and a template to set foo, and using a template directly anyway?
If you use something like this:
{| style="border: 1px solid black;"
then (1) the CSS applies no matter what skin anyone is using, but people who use MySkin probably don't want any CSS applied because they want to define it all themselves; and (2) if I don't want that border, I can't even remove it. However, in the my example above I could just add to my User CSS:
.specificpurpose { border: none; }
No, that is a strawman. I am neither arguing against wiki-syntax nor against templates.
Then please don't inject arguments that aren't n the current discussion without adding OT :)
Huh? I was responding to this argument from you:
It is very convient to be able to create templates that start tables with a lot of predefiened markup, so users can just say:
{{start-table-for-specific-purpose-foo}}
instead of creatig manually bordersizes etc. It also makes mass-changing tables easier.
Under my proposal, users can just say:
{| class="specific-purpose"
which is surely shorter, cleaner, easier on the server (no template look-up), and more future-proof (does not make crazy assumptions about the working principles of the parser) and you _still_ don't need to manually create any style definitions, and mass-changing the style of those tables is no more or less easy.
I was arguing for templates and for wiki-syntax. CSS doesn't have anything to do with it if I understood you correctly above :)
Then according to your logic, surely we should use {{strike|text}} instead of <s>text</s>. (This is to demonstrate your strawman.)
No, you were actually arguing for templates _in a specific situation_ (starting a table with a certain style). When I refuted that argument, you suddenly claimed that my logic would apply to completely different situations. That is simply a strawman.
Timwi