Item4973: default skin appears to have javascript in it

found when investigating Item4859

the mandatory field is empty js popup is active even when you set skin=default

-- TWiki:Main/SvenDowideit - 15 Nov 2007

The default skin must not depend on Javascript, but that doesn't preclude the use of javascript to improve the user experience as long as it is strictly non-essential, does it? The mandatory field checks are repeated when the topic is saved; the immediate feedback is simply to prevent accidental data loss when using 'back' in firefox, and is not a requirement for the skin to work.

I don't think this is a problem, but am happy to have the debate.

CC

What is the fallback for selecting topics with renaming?

-- TWiki:Main.ArthurClemens - 15 Nov 2007

Item4859 shows that the mandatory field check on save is not working and this makes it less likely to be noticed.

I guess my number 1 thing, is that we decided not to do it, and have not (as a group) changed that decision. I would rather that there were none, so that there is a clean separation between the html only default skin, then a javascript mixin skin that would contain the desired js (which could then be swapped with other implementations), and then the top level skin (like mt, nat, pattern, etc)

This would make it much simpler for Micha to replace the js with JQuery implementations, or me with dojo ones, or even more fun, Arthur with flash based bits..

So my concern is twofold, following a decision that was previously heavily debated, and decided on, until that decision is formally changed, and as an architectural one, giving clear lines of implementation so that others can follow.

Please, don't forget that there do exist people that turn off javascript in their browser. You can never presume that javascript is there.

-- TWiki:Main.SvenDowideit - 15 Nov 2007

Of course, and the accidental data-loss check is purely advisory, it is not a critical part of the flow. However you are correct, the chances of testing uncovering problems with the mandatory field check are lessened by this Javascript - especially as more of us fall back to lightweight skins (I am a MoveableTypeSkin convert myself).

-- TWiki:Main.CrawfordCurrie - 16 Nov 2007

Thinking that the only JS was the mandatory field check, I went looking; and realised there's a heck of a lot more JS in the default templates, so handing this off to Arthur for feedback.

CC

What are your ideas about pop-up windows in edit mode? Should the default skin just go to a new page, leaving the changes as is?

My opinion: we can only do this if default skin is never offered as skin. Like an abstract class that cannot be instantiated, it should never be offered to end users. Otherwise the risk of data loss is too great.

On the rename pages we offer the links "Select all" and "Deselect all". These should be removed or hidden with no javascript support.

-- TWiki:Main.ArthurClemens - 18 Nov 2007

pop-up windows in edit mode

• are UI (and thus skin) specific, and thus should not be in the default skin

• correct, that js is skin specific

default skin must work as a skin, insomuch as its a complete and functioning skin. TWiki versions 1&2 had fully functional skins that did not require js - I still can't think of any function that would require js.

I'm not suggesting that very may people would chose to use it, just that it is the basis over the top of which the dojo_default, jquery_default, yui_default (and movabletype_nonjs) skins would be layered.

I do however remind you that there are users that use twiki with js support turned off.

-- TWiki:Main.SvenDowideit - 19 Nov 2007

In that case you accept that links on the edit page will lead to another page.

-- TWiki:Main.ArthurClemens - 19 Nov 2007

Yes, but of course that doesn't mean using the same window. You can open a window without recourse to Javascript. example

If you cast your minds back, you may recall an argument I had with Peter over listing the default templates as a skin. That's because i saw the default templates as Arthur describes them; as an abstract base-class on which you can build a skin. Having said that, it is clear that that concept is too complex for most people, and as such the base templates have to function as a skin. However the focus of that skin has to be on acting as the basis for other skins to be built, rather than as a fully functional skin. The base templates should not contain JS, and functionality should not be puched into them - the reverse if anything. We want those templates to be as simple as possible.

-- TWiki:Main.CrawfordCurrie - 19 Nov 2007

I have updated the templates.

-- TWiki:Main.ArthurClemens - 20 Nov 2007

blimey Arthur, good job!

I'm not sure why you also moved the TWikiCss topic to pattern skin, but on the whole, this should make it easier for new skins based on default skin to totally change our way of looking at and using TWiki.

-- TWiki:Main.SvenDowideit - 21 Nov 2007

I didn't - TWikiCss is still distributed with data/TWiki.

-- TWiki:Main.ArthurClemens - 21 Nov 2007