[1.7][2.0] 2k11 – standard, default or what else?

[yellowled]

First, some definitions (how I use these terms):

* default template: the template s9y uses to get missing .tpl files from → fallback
* standard template: the template which is active by default in new s9y installation

2k11 seems widely appreciated and accepted as the new standard in upcoming s9y versions. It might need more testing, maybe even more support for plugins. Also, nested categories are still to be implemented – other than that, it is more or less finished. and ready to be the new standard as of now, but would need more files (img, treeview, YahooUI, tpls etc. related to feeds, backend-related stuff) to become the new default.

Personally, I think it is about time s9y got a new default, but it might be better if 2k11 first became just the new standard.

Discuss, please.

YL

[Don Chambers]

have you run it through browsershots? Any significant issues? What does the backend look like? I think you have done a great job with what I have seen so far! Kudos!

[Timbalu]

Well, I'd say:

• you can not use it as the new default by now, while possibly breaking backward compatibility with other templates in use. This should be checked first with all other templates (imagine one using a XHTML4 template falling back and make use of a default HTML5*.tpl file... is this possible?).
• If you release it as a standard template in your sence, I dont think there is a real difference. If you bundle it as standard, it is some sort of default too, while it is added into the fallback line for all templates in use. Exempli gratia: BP is the standard in 1.5.x and that is why it is also used as default fallback: someTemplate->BP->default. And do not forget about the engine fallback thing too.

Maybe we could sort this out before and really know what happens using other templates with 2k11 as the new default or standard template engine.

But as I really like it to be free'ed somehow as an lighthouse project epitome .... why not use it as an experimental standard/default template first, added as an recommended, but additional template to 1.6, free to use, if someones is willing to have it, until the compatibility things got worked out...

Please correct, if my concerns are wrong.

[yellowled]

have you run it through browsershots? Any significant issues? What does the backend look like?

I don't really use browsershots any longer. I have tested it in the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari and Opera as well as IE 7-9 (7 and 8 in IE9's browser compatibility mode, but I can test it in native IE7 and IE8 as well). Also in the default Android browser and Opera Mini. I assume at least one of the site's visitors has tested it on an iPhone and/or iPad. No issues left.

The backend looks like the admin template anyone chooses to use with it. This is completely seperated from a new default backend.

YL

[yellowled]

you can not use it as the new default by now, while possibly breaking backward compatibility with other templates in use. This should be checked first with all other templates (imagine one using a XHTML4 template falling back and make use of a default HTML5*.tpl file... is this possible?)

So we need some kind of doctype-related fallback mechanism: /templates/default for HTML4/XHTML1.* (there is no such thing as XHTML4), 2k11 for HTML5. The question remains which files would need to be added for it to work properly as a fallback template.

BP is the standard in 1.5.x and that is why it is also used as default fallback: someTemplate->BP->default.

BP is not the current fallback. default is.

why not use it as an experimental standard/default template first, added as an recommended, but additional template to 1.6, free to use, if someones is willing to have it, until the compatibility things got worked out...

Well, it's not as if the code is secretly stored away. Anyone running a 1.6-beta could use it now, although I would not advise to do so.

YL

[Timbalu]

(there is no such thing as XHTML4)

Sure, I forgot the brackets!

The question remains which files would need to be added for it to work properly as a fallback template.

All the ones old default has at least, I assume. (and BP)
But did you test some other templates installed with 2k11 being the default, falling back to a tpl with html5 semantics and new CSS(3) ?

BP is not the current fallback. default is.

Yes and No, in my experience. BP is the current standard and as I darkly remember my test with my own template - some of them documented here (http://board.s9y.org/viewtopic.php?f=11 ... 1&start=30) - the (some) fallback line happend to look into standard first and then head to default, if still needed. MainTemplate --> BP --> default. Please test this widely if this is really reproducable.

[yellowled]

All the ones old default has at least, I assume. (and BP)

BP doesn't matter. I also don't think it needs to have all files default has. Some of them are related to the backend template, so they might become obsolete with a new default backend template. Also, some of this stuff is not commonly used, so I think we can safely drop stuff like comment popup and comments by author.

But did you test some other templates installed with 2k11 being the default, falling back to a tpl with html5 semantics and new CSS(3) ?

No. Most of them won't work. They'll either be invalid due to the missing HTML5 doctype (if the template has an index.tpl) or fail in terms of layout because they work on a table-based layout.

And you know what? I don't care.

Seriously, the way to bring this whole thing forward and actually improve it is not to keep in mind backwards compatibility back to the C64 age. I really thought we were way beyond this part of the discussion. At some point, something's gotta break.

YL

[Timbalu]

And you know what? I don't care.

Seriously, the way to bring this whole thing forward and actually improve it is not to keep in mind backwards compatibility back to the C64 age. I really thought we were way beyond this part of the discussion. At some point, something's gotta break.

True! I really understand this point of view and did not want to start old discussions about being BC into ages. I just tried to answer your question, pushing the status of 2k11, as it is now.

But migrating old templates to something new, based on a new default, does take time and lots of notice, you know how many of really old ones are still out in the wild, so this possibly is a term of up to a 2-digit month period passing by... thats is the reason I recommended to release it now as the experimental, but additional template, officially announced being the default in future.

I thought about this problem too with my own template and came to the solution, to use engine::new_default, which made it totally independent from this. This is a way to develop in production without loosing the old behaviour.

[yellowled]

But migrating old templates to something new, based on a new default, does take time and lots of notice

It doesn't make sense to update old templates to HTML5, which is why I suggest to keep default:

a) as a legacy fallback for HTML4/XHTML templates
b) as a temporary fallback for 2k11 should it be included in whatever form in 1.6(.x)

Once 2k11 is updated to be a fallback, it can serve as the HTML5 fallback template, but I guess to do that, we need to integrate it with a complementary backend template. In that case, default would remain the fallback for legacy templates. That seems like the most sensible solution.

As long as 2k11 is not ready to be the fallback, it can be no more than standard. If it should be the standard and from which version on is more or less up for discussion. I really wouldn't like it to be marked as experimental since that's just not what it is.

YL

[Timbalu]

Yeah, this indicates some sort of switch added to core, and we even could lift it with 1.6!
Not marking it as experimental in sense of experiment is very likely highly understandable!

[Timbalu]

I just gave it a run to show the fallback line, saying the $serendipity['defaultTemplate'] Serendipity var meaning the standard template in YLs sense.

$serendipity['defaultTemplate'] = '2k11';

Smarty Debug Console
included templates & config files (load time in seconds)
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/entries.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/content.tpl
/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/index.tpl (0.99844)
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/default/plugin_categories.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/sidebar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/2k11/plugin_staticpage_sidebar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/sidebar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/plugin_calendar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/sidebar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/sidebar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/sidebar.tpl

with

$serendipity['defaultTemplate'] = 'bulletproof'; as it is now:

Smarty Debug Console
included templates & config files (load time in seconds)
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/entries.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/content.tpl
/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/index.tpl (0.96614)
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/default/plugin_categories.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/sidebar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/plugins/serendipity_event_staticpage/plugin_staticpage_sidebar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/sidebar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/plugin_calendar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/sidebar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/sidebar.tpl
file:/var/www/tests/serendipity/templates/mytemplate/sidebar.tpl

This indicates - as my template does not have a plugin_categories.tpl, but 2k11 has - the (smarty) tpl fallback is something different to the $serendipity['defaultTemplate'] css/images/??? fallback, true?

others:
{TEMPLATE_PATH} in serendipity.css = /serendipity/templates/new_default/ (as this is my default engine)
{serendipity_getFile file="/foo"} path = /serendipity/templates/default/
{$template} path = myTemplate

[yellowled]

This indicates - as my template does not have a plugin_categories.tpl, but 2k11 has - the (smarty) tpl fallback is something different to the $serendipity['defaultTemplate'] css/images/??? fallback, true?

The categories plugin needs to be explicitly set to use smarty templating.

YL

[Timbalu]

The categories plugin needs to be explicitly set to use smarty templating.

What do you mean?
The plugin_internal.inc calls the plugin_categories.tpl via

Code: Select all

echo serendipity_smarty_fetch('CATEGORIES', 'plugin_categories.tpl');

that is why it is searched in template paths.

[yellowled]

What do you mean?

Using smarty templating (i.e. using plugin_categories.tpl) is optional. It's not used if said .tpl file is present in a template directory, it needs to be activated explicitly in the plugin config to be used.

YL

[Timbalu]

I see, yes. (It is activated in my enviroment)

But this has nothing to do with my indication about (smarty) tpl fallback cases differing to template css/??? fallback cases. That was the point confusing me.