I really don't think it's a good idea to have separate hard-coded logo image files for IE and everything else. It's already bad enough that you have to overwrite files installed as part of MediaWiki to set the logo displayed by Monobook (*separately* from the other skins), now you have to do two, and remember to do the one that your browser never shows?
It just seems like a lot of trouble to maintain.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 13:05 -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
I really don't think it's a good idea to have separate hard-coded logo image files for IE and everything else. It's already bad enough that you have to overwrite files installed as part of MediaWiki to set the logo displayed by Monobook (*separately* from the other skins), now you have to do two, and remember to do the one that your browser never shows?
It just seems like a lot of trouble to maintain.
They could both be indexed, but i wouldn't like the indexed look in a modern browser, especially with the book behind it. The png hack for ie doesn't seem to work with some versions of 6.0. Giving ie an opaque background might be ok for the mediawiki logo, but imo not for a real site. If the default logo was placed in the main style dir relative paths to that one would be possible as well. Any objections against this?
Furthermore, the indexed ie version can be commented out by default in the release if needed to avoid newbie woes.
On Apr 21, 2004, at 13:34, Gabriel Wicke wrote:
They could both be indexed, but i wouldn't like the indexed look in a modern browser, especially with the book behind it. The png hack for ie doesn't seem to work with some versions of 6.0. Giving ie an opaque background might be ok for the mediawiki logo, but imo not for a real site.
I think that would be perfectly acceptable for a small minority of users with such an incompatible configuration to get the opaque fallback. Certainly it's far more acceptable than having two logo files which will likely be frequently out of sync.
If the default logo was placed in the main style dir relative paths to that one would be possible as well. Any objections against this?
Yes, that would be rather inconvenient. On Wikipedia we have slightly different logo images for every wiki while the rest of the styles remain the same; this would then require maintaining dozens/hundreds of near-duplicate style directory trees, where now we've got a shared style tree and just adjust $wgLogo.
The trees would have to be carefully synced up to propagate updates without overwriting the logo all the time (this is a problem for third-party users as well; we should seek to minimize the amount of mucking about with internal files that has to be done).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
We found a solution that circumvents the maintainability problem by specifying the image path in the xhtml source (uses the default $wgLogo now).
The png fix function is switched on again but needs some improvement: In some versions of IE6 with some security configurations it pops up ActiveX warnings which is highly annoying.
Finding a way to detect ActiveX would be a cool small project for somebody with ie/js skills. The file to hack is http://test.wikipedia.org/style/IEFixes.js. Fixalpha should only fire if the filter is allowed to execute.
Any takers?
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
