Hmmm. How did you change it? If I change it under "Personal Settings", I have to reload the admin backend once after changing it. Another way would be to change it under "Configuration" -> "General Settings", but that's global. After that, I'm out.Don Chambers wrote:BTW - I wanted to see what some of these links look like in other languages, but I cannot seem to change the language of my development area to anything other than english. Some secret I am not aware of?
I can change it in personal preferences.... I cannot change it system wide. While this is merely for development, and is not publically viewable, I presume the general settings for language is what would be changed if this WAS a public site, and I wanted the general public (not logged in) to view it in, say, spanish. No matter what I try to set it to in the general settings, the blog remains in English (no, I am not referring to entries, which are all lorem ipsum anyway).garvinhicking wrote:Hi Don!
That's wrong, as yellowled already properly indicated. You need to change it in personal perferences.
Regards,
Garvin
Second, fourth and fifth are done, zipfile updated.yellowled wrote:My ToDo list says we still need to check off the following points:
- admin backend styling
- check .tpl files for unnecessary <br />s
- revamped png bp button
- possibly change all font-sizes to % in the colorset stylesheets
- maybe add the purple_body.png Don provided
I don't have anything left to do while Don's styling the admin backend and redoing the button, so I might consider adding some more .tpl files for the popular plugins which actually provide .tpl files. Strip some <br />s and stuff. We'll see, but basically, we're one button away from finally releasing this thing in my opinion ...I hadn't thought about that. I'll have to revise our .tpl files first, but I think some of them might in fact only be different in terms of XHTML compliance, removing unnecessary <br />s and stuff like that. Some of them might include changes which simply make styling the output a tad easier. I'll report back after the weekend.garvinhicking wrote:I suggest to maybe provide 2 packages of the BP theme in that case. A default one, without plugin customizations. And a 'full featured' one with maybe plugin templating for files you think that are required.
If it's only about XHTML compliance etc, those should maybe better be fixed in the central .tpl file of which the plugin bundles.
I know. I mirrored spartacus's plugin section this morningDon Chambers wrote:However, let me warn you, there are a TON of plugins!!!!! Many more than I ever realized!!
I think we have about 160 plugins or something at the moment, but not all of them provide .tpl files.Well, in my humble opinion, this shouldn't be important. Older templates can be updated.Don Chambers wrote:Plus - stripping out <br />'s will likely require that element be styled with padding or margins, something older templates are not likely going to have.
I'm not going to put words into his mouth, but I am not so sure Garvin will agree with you on that pointyellowled wrote:Well, in my humble opinion, this shouldn't be important. Older templates can be updated.Don Chambers wrote:Plus - stripping out <br />'s will likely require that element be styled with padding or margins, something older templates are not likely going to have.
YL
I have had to live with a bunch of comprimises just to make sure I didn't introduce a problem (unless it was really insignificant) in old templates. And this is just in the backend. I would think throwing off the formatting on the frontend would be even worse.Yeah, well ... I have put the idea aside for the time being, but I'll keep it in mind simply because I think some of the plugin .tpl files could use a makeover. I don't blame anybody, it's just that coders usually don't think like webauthorsDon Chambers wrote:I'm not going to put words into his mouth, but I am not so sure Garvin will agree with you on that point
There are a lot of cases in my humble opinion in which revamping the .tpl file(s) could do some good. We'll see.Erm, what kind of font-sizing do you use? You're not seriously still using px or pt, are you?Don Chambers wrote:I also need to consider changing my font size methodology to that of BP. I cannot tell you how much I hate relative font sizing!!!! I realize it is the proper way to go, but it is a real PITA as each successive container keeps compounding both em's and percentages.
Don, are you still using an old snapshot? The latest snapshot has a font-size of 90% for #footer, which should be the font-size for the credit line.Don Chambers wrote:Are we really sure switching from 0.9em to 90%, 0.8em to 80%, etc is all that worthwhile? There is no significant difference is there? Also - I think 0.6em for the credit line in the colorsets is VERY small in both IE6 and FF using default browser text size. I suggest 0.75em, or certainly no smaller than 0.7 (which I can still barely read).
Yes, that's probably a good idea. However, I don't have time to do this today or tomorrow - two people have reported issues with my older templates, I have to take care of that first.Don Chambers wrote:Before this thing is fully released, I suggest we go through absolutely everything.... every page, push every button, try every link, etc.
I'll see what I can do once I get the time.Don Chambers wrote:Another suggestion I have is comparing our colorsheet, base and style.css files to the default style.css and/or any of the most comprehensive stylesheets we can think of. We are really lean in our defined styles and might want to beef them up a bit more, if for no other reason to better demonstrate what CAN be styled.
Shoot, I keep forgetting about thatDon Chambers wrote:Did anyone ever go through the colorsheets and make sure the declarations were in the same order as style & base.css??
This is a task I really hate, which is probably why I keep forgetting about it Code: Select all
#footer {
font-size: .6em;
padding: 0.25em;
border: 0px;
background-color: #dfdfdf;
}