Talk:OBX proposals: Difference between revisions
(Use a large icon-free obx to replace Status_box?) |
(Other obx ideas) |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
Sigh. So much pain because mediawiki was poorly designed. [[User:MitchellNCharity|MitchellNCharity]] 02:11, 9 August 2007 (EDT) |
Sigh. So much pain because mediawiki was poorly designed. [[User:MitchellNCharity|MitchellNCharity]] 02:11, 9 August 2007 (EDT) |
||
== Other obx ideas == |
|||
*I run sugar-jhbuild on {Ubuntu}. |
|||
*I run emulation on {qemu} on {fedora}. |
|||
*I have an XO {(B4)}. |
Revision as of 06:17, 9 August 2007
Coooooooooooooooooooooool
Use a large icon-free obx to replace Status_box?
Looking at the two activity boxes in Kuku, it seems the Status_box version is unavoidably more attractive than the obx version, simply because it has less "excess ink" not conveying information. But having box-based extensibility would be nice. And we still need a work-around for the argument passing problems. So maybe Status_box could be made into a large icon-free obx? Eg,
{olpcboxtop for activity|name=Kuku} {obx activity overview |activity = Kuku |icon = Kuku.png |status = In Development/XO Testing |version = 0.1 |base = 0.1 |source = ... |l10n = ... |contributors = ... } ... other obxes could go here ... {olpcboxbottom}
Just two ideas here:
- obx_activity_overview (or whatever one calls it) is a modified Status_box which generates an obx-like div (but one without the icon concept).
- olpcboxtop_for_activity calls olpcboxtop, setting the box color and header, as the test version does explicitly.
So the above code would look exactly like the current Status_box version (well, slightly wider), but when something runs afoul of mediawiki's argument passing, one could simply drop that line from obx_activity_overview, and add a separate obx for it then. Incremental just-in-time ugliness.
Another alternative might be
{olpcboxtop for activity|name=Kuku} {obx box top} {obx activity icon|Kuku.png} {obx activity status|In Development/XO Testing} {obx activity version|0.1} {obx activity base|0.1} {obx activity source|name=Kuku|...} {obx activity l10n|...} {obx activity contributors|...} {obx box bottom} {olpcboxbottom}
where the obx_activity_foo are basically just <tr><td><b>{1}</b></td><td>{2}</td></tr>. This makes things a little uglier and less flexible up front, in order to buy more graceful degredation (ie, one is never forced to bail out to a true obx).
Hmm, and actually, we still haven't used the "|more=}" dont close the box! concept.
So those two might be combined as
{olpcboxtop for activity|name=Kuku} {obx activity overview |activity = Kuku |icon = Kuku.png |status = In Development/XO Testing |version = 0.1 |base = 0.1 |there is more=} {obx activity contributors|...} {obx box bottom} {olpcboxbottom}
Or perhaps even better, as
{olpcbox for activity |name = Kuku |icon = Kuku.png ... |there are more entries=} {obx activity contributors|...} {obx box bottom} {olpcboxbottom}
and also
{olpcbox for activity |name = Kuku |icon = Kuku.png ... |there are more boxes=} ... more boxes here... {olpcboxbottom}
and often
{olpcbox for activity |name = Kuku |icon = Kuku.png ... } <!-- all done, no more boxes, no quoting problems to work around -->
But... While implementation should be easy, I'm not sure it's worth the user complexity cost. Ie, adding a box may require adding a "there are more boxes" argument.
Sigh. So much pain because mediawiki was poorly designed. MitchellNCharity 02:11, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
Other obx ideas
- I run sugar-jhbuild on {Ubuntu}.
- I run emulation on {qemu} on {fedora}.
- I have an XO {(B4)}.