I wrote an RFC about scoping Common.css and Mobile.css: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Scoping_site_CSS
In short: this could help us separate CSS rules added by administrators from the core UI rules of MediaWiki.
What we would get: * UI (chrome) CSS more predictable and broken less often * no crazy UI styling as seen at https://nv.wikipedia.org
Please share your thoughts.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wrote an RFC about scoping Common.css and Mobile.css: https://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Scoping_site_CSShttps://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Scoping_site_CSS
In short: this could help us separate CSS rules added by administrators from the core UI rules of MediaWiki.
This could also be useful for VE/Parsoid; see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51245 --scott
Yay! I see several good things that could come out of this, but to prevent pitchforks and misunderstandings, I think this RFC should be split some more.
So ideally, this should be split into multiple RFCs. The ones I can think of, so far:
1. LESS support for RL. 2. Separate CSS(LESS?) that applies just to content, and is scoped as such. 3. An easier way to custom-style your wiki that does not require you to edit CSS, and also can be as flexible as the current one. 4. Remove customizability via Site / User CSS.
1 and 2 should mostly get general support, and *should* get what we want (content styles that we can load by themselves without conflicting the UI). 3 is awesome, but also very hard - and does not have a clear use case. 4 is akin to taking away internet from a hackerspace and is a lot, lot harder - and of limited benefit.
So... split this? :)
-- Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog
4 is basically pointless. I hope that will never get approved (I very much doubt it will anyway).
Alex Monk
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Yuvi Panda yuvipanda@gmail.com wrote:
Yay! I see several good things that could come out of this, but to prevent pitchforks and misunderstandings, I think this RFC should be split some more.
So ideally, this should be split into multiple RFCs. The ones I can think of, so far:
- LESS support for RL.
- Separate CSS(LESS?) that applies just to content, and is scoped as such.
- An easier way to custom-style your wiki that does not require you
to edit CSS, and also can be as flexible as the current one. 4. Remove customizability via Site / User CSS.
1 and 2 should mostly get general support, and *should* get what we want (content styles that we can load by themselves without conflicting the UI). 3 is awesome, but also very hard - and does not have a clear use case. 4 is akin to taking away internet from a hackerspace and is a lot, lot harder - and of limited benefit.
So... split this? :)
-- Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Alex Monk krenair@gmail.com wrote:
4 is basically pointless. I hope that will never get approved (I very much doubt it will anyway).
I agree, and separating that out from the other 3 should help in making sure that everyone doesn't get distracted by 4 while 1-3 are indeed nice things by themselves :)
-- Yuvi Panda T http://yuvi.in/blog
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Yuvi Panda yuvipanda@gmail.com wrote:
- LESS support for RL.
Don't we want more support for RL, not less? ;)
On 07/17/2013 05:59 PM, Yuvi Panda wrote:
Yay! I see several good things that could come out of this, but to prevent pitchforks and misunderstandings, I think this RFC should be split some more.
So ideally, this should be split into multiple RFCs. The ones I can think of, so far:
- LESS support for RL.
Note, there are bugs for both LESS (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40964) and Sass (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46545) integration for ResourceLoader.
Matt Flaschen
On 16 jul. 2013, at 23:51, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wrote an RFC about scoping Common.css and Mobile.css: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Scoping_site_CSS
In short: this could help us separate CSS rules added by administrators from the core UI rules of MediaWiki.
What we would get:
- UI (chrome) CSS more predictable and broken less often
- no crazy UI styling as seen at https://nv.wikipedia.org
Please share your thoughts.
Some things to remember: * Content isn't always inside the #content node (think navpopups, reftooltips, image annotation extension, stuff (TMH) inside jquery dialogs etc). * Anything no longer allowed by Common.css could easily be injected using javascript. * You can still get out of #content by using relative or absolute positioning * Some CSS in Common.css is already prefixed with #content (or body) sometimes, for specificity reasons. What will LESS do with that... * Some CSS in Common.css is namespace specific and thus relies on the ns-# classes of the body. * Some CSS in Common.css is rtl specific and thus relies on the rtl class of the body. There is no rtl class on #content and #mw-content-text has a different meaning. * Some CSS in Common.css targets UI, not content.
That's a lot of potential breaking points for a lot of existing installations, that will need to be 'guided' trough the process. I count about 40 selectors in the English Wikipedia that would require fixing. Some of the existing content selectors would not be possible after your scenario unless using Javascript.
In principle it is a nice idea, and I think we should slowly move into that direction. But in terms of styling, it's somewhat security trough obscurity if you ask me.
Also: https://nv.wikipedia.org wtf? Something as unreadable as that goes against core principles. I can't believe it's been there for years already....
DJ
The DJ these are some great points and super useful (and to me what an RFC should be all about - entertaining the proposal and playing devils advocate) - could you add these to the RFC so they don't get lost? In terms of the RTL problem - I could imagine a RTL stylesheet would be useful here - I don't think RTL rules should be surfaced on a LTR site. I also don't think that CSS that is only active in a certain namespace should be loaded everywhere (although another viewpoint is that this leads to more css fragmentation so there are 2 sides to this argument)
(I'll copy this response to RFC when it's there :))
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman d.j.hartman+wmf_ml@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 jul. 2013, at 23:51, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wrote an RFC about scoping Common.css and Mobile.css: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Scoping_site_CSS
In short: this could help us separate CSS rules added by administrators from the core UI rules of MediaWiki.
What we would get:
- UI (chrome) CSS more predictable and broken less often
- no crazy UI styling as seen at https://nv.wikipedia.org
Please share your thoughts.
Some things to remember:
- Content isn't always inside the #content node (think navpopups, reftooltips, image annotation extension, stuff (TMH) inside jquery dialogs etc).
- Anything no longer allowed by Common.css could easily be injected using javascript.
- You can still get out of #content by using relative or absolute positioning
- Some CSS in Common.css is already prefixed with #content (or body) sometimes, for specificity reasons. What will LESS do with that...
- Some CSS in Common.css is namespace specific and thus relies on the ns-# classes of the body.
- Some CSS in Common.css is rtl specific and thus relies on the rtl class of the body. There is no rtl class on #content and #mw-content-text has a different meaning.
- Some CSS in Common.css targets UI, not content.
That's a lot of potential breaking points for a lot of existing installations, that will need to be 'guided' trough the process. I count about 40 selectors in the English Wikipedia that would require fixing. Some of the existing content selectors would not be possible after your scenario unless using Javascript.
In principle it is a nice idea, and I think we should slowly move into that direction. But in terms of styling, it's somewhat security trough obscurity if you ask me.
Also: https://nv.wikipedia.org wtf? Something as unreadable as that goes against core principles. I can't believe it's been there for years already....
DJ _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org