On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:53:16 -0700, Jon Robson <jdlrobson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Matthew Flaschen
<mflaschen(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
1. The CSS classes wouldn't work (i.e.
.skin-vector).
Note true - skin-vector class could easily be added using
addToBodyAttributes
This would be a fairly hacky way to do things.
2. It would
break conditional scripts (skinScripts/skinStyles) and user
scripts (User:Example/vector.js).
I'm pretty sure the skin could be modified to load these also but feel
free to prove me wrong.
This is controlled by ResourceLoaderUserModule not the skin, you would
have to add a pretty awful hack to RL to make this work.
3. We would
have to do the subclass for every supported skin, for
projects that are skin-neutral (which Echo is for example).
I know most projects are skin neutral however we wouldn't not have to
subclass every supported skin - since Vector is the most widely used
skin I think this would be sufficient in succeeding in the goal of
bringing attention to new features to interested party.
That's a pretty bad practice. Only subclassing one skin precludes users
testing for compatibility bugs in other skins.
----
Quite frankly I find the idea of using a skin for beta stuff like this
counterintuitive. The user is not expecting a "skin" -- something intended
to change the visual layout and looks of the site) -- to be a preference
to toggle on beta features.
I don't see any reason why these features must be implemented using a new
skin rather than just adding a new preference to the preferences page for
the same purpose.
((And to anyone complaining about more preferences being added. Adding an
option with a completely irrelevant meaning to an existing preference is
an unacceptable alternative to adding a new preference.))
--
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [
http://danielfriesen.name/]