Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Nao
6616
Plugins / Re: I just had a sad thought.
« on January 18th, 2012, 04:07 PM »
One thing that has a point, is finishing 1.0... :whistle:
Seriously, as I asked a few weeks ago, we should try and establish a list of things that need to be implemented, a list of things that need to be fixed, and a list of things that can safely be put aside for now (whether because they're specific changes that won't disrupt anything, or because it's pretty certain we can implement easy conversion in the upgrade script).
It's January 2012 and I don't want to spend the year in beta...
Seriously, as I asked a few weeks ago, we should try and establish a list of things that need to be implemented, a list of things that need to be fixed, and a list of things that can safely be put aside for now (whether because they're specific changes that won't disrupt anything, or because it's pretty certain we can implement easy conversion in the upgrade script).
It's January 2012 and I don't want to spend the year in beta...
6617
Features / Re: New revs
« on January 18th, 2012, 04:04 PM »
rev 1261
(3 files, 2kb)
! Browser test variables (is_*) were returning 'undefined' instead of 'false', causing an issue with opacity animation in the menus.[1] (script.js)
! Fixed Wedgeward credit not aligning correctly in old IE versions. (Credits.php)
* Translation fix. (Admin.french.php)
(3 files, 2kb)
! Browser test variables (is_*) were returning 'undefined' instead of 'false', causing an issue with opacity animation in the menus.[1] (script.js)
! Fixed Wedgeward credit not aligning correctly in old IE versions. (Credits.php)
* Translation fix. (Admin.french.php)
| 1. | I couldn't decide whether the opacity animation should actually stay or not, though. I like it in the main menu, but it's a bit overkill elsewhere. |
6618
Plugins / Re: I just had a sad thought.
« on January 18th, 2012, 01:06 PM »
Instead of writing silly things like a parser, I think we should focus on finishing v1.0, shouldn't we...? :^^;:
6619
Features / Re: New revs
« on January 17th, 2012, 11:18 PM »
rev 1260
(2 files, 1kb)
! Fixed incorrect positioning inside select box dropdown during its opening animation, as well as when first using the mouse wheel if not positioned at the top. (sbox.js)
! Fixed select box animation glitches when using Opera and select box is within an inline box or something. Well, technically I've hidden the problem under the carpet rather than fixed it, but whatever. (sbox.js)
* Simplified some of the select box code. Scrollbar didn't need updating when re-opening dropdowns. There was no need for openSB to check for the .open class either (it's always done before the function is called), and scrollbar creation was doing some extra hiding/showing work on the dropdown, which was already done in its parent function. All in all, saved a total of 32 bytes :) (sbox.js)
- Not sure why the yesno HTML had an extra div... (Media.template.php)
(2 files, 1kb)
! Fixed incorrect positioning inside select box dropdown during its opening animation, as well as when first using the mouse wheel if not positioned at the top. (sbox.js)
! Fixed select box animation glitches when using Opera and select box is within an inline box or something. Well, technically I've hidden the problem under the carpet rather than fixed it, but whatever. (sbox.js)
* Simplified some of the select box code. Scrollbar didn't need updating when re-opening dropdowns. There was no need for openSB to check for the .open class either (it's always done before the function is called), and scrollbar creation was doing some extra hiding/showing work on the dropdown, which was already done in its parent function. All in all, saved a total of 32 bytes :) (sbox.js)
- Not sure why the yesno HTML had an extra div... (Media.template.php)
6620
Features / Re: Selectbox
« on January 17th, 2012, 10:50 PM »
So... By moving .inline-block to .details instead of .sbox, I'm finally fixing everything. It seems like Opera doesn't like it when a close parent has inline block status and we ask it to do some animation.
Unfortunately, although it fixes everything in the main content area, the sidebar thoughts behave even weirder... Now the dropdown will be shown on top of the display area, instead of below it. And if it's a drop-up, there will be a gap.
Now my best results are with position: relative set on .sbox and it being an inline box. I'm not sure how but it fixed itself. However, the dropdown is now hidden when the select box is enclosed in an overflow: hidden area.... I could possibly apply another kind of clearfix to these instead. But I'd rather fix that. Anyone knows how to fix an element being cut off when absolutely positioned and its parent is relatively positioned? I tried setting the parent to be absolute, it fixed it, and then obviously it broke layout in many places... -_-
I think you're the only one who will have an opinion (a position?!) on this, Pete... Please comment, I see you've been reading this... :^^;:
This positioning thing is too unstable. There's always some reason for it to 'fail'. I think I'll go in the sad direction for now -- disabling animations for Opera. Which is twice as sad as could be: additional browser sniffing in sbox.js, and browser sniffing to the detriment of my favorite browser and test platform... :(
Unfortunately, although it fixes everything in the main content area, the sidebar thoughts behave even weirder... Now the dropdown will be shown on top of the display area, instead of below it. And if it's a drop-up, there will be a gap.
Now my best results are with position: relative set on .sbox and it being an inline box. I'm not sure how but it fixed itself. However, the dropdown is now hidden when the select box is enclosed in an overflow: hidden area.... I could possibly apply another kind of clearfix to these instead. But I'd rather fix that. Anyone knows how to fix an element being cut off when absolutely positioned and its parent is relatively positioned? I tried setting the parent to be absolute, it fixed it, and then obviously it broke layout in many places... -_-
Posted: January 17th, 2012, 10:20 PM
I think you're the only one who will have an opinion (a position?!) on this, Pete... Please comment, I see you've been reading this... :^^;:
This positioning thing is too unstable. There's always some reason for it to 'fail'. I think I'll go in the sad direction for now -- disabling animations for Opera. Which is twice as sad as could be: additional browser sniffing in sbox.js, and browser sniffing to the detriment of my favorite browser and test platform... :(
6621
Features / Re: Selectbox
« on January 17th, 2012, 05:47 PM »
So... I was looking into this annoying bug with Opera, where sometimes (an easy example is simply the thought editor in the sidebar), closing an opened select box will leave a trail of box shadow remnants.
From what I managed to gather... I was NOT able to find out WHY this happens (obviously an Opera bug, but HOW to trigger it or fix it elegantly?), but I managed to fix it consistently in several different ways:
- By using fadeOut() instead of animate() to remove the box. Easiest solution. Doesn't look as great, though....
- By wrapping the select box around a <div> tag with no class or anything. Anything that has display: block, basically. I cannot confirm, however, that it works consistently, and it's not the easiest either.
- By removing the display: inline-block from .sbox -- but then, whether using 'inline' or 'block' instead, the select box fills up the entire width available. (Possibly because of the inline-blocks it contains.)
So... A possible 'hack' would be, I suppose, to turn the select box into an invisible inline-block, get its dimensions, and then turn it back into an inline element. Or, just do that for Opera, obviously... But then we lose the 1px margin that I've set in the .sbox definition.
I'm a bit at a loss...
Anyone ever heard of this problem? Did you manage to reproduce? (any version of Opera + any recent version of Wedge)
Did you hear about difficulties with .animate() and trails left behind?
Or at least, do you have any 'favorites' in my suggestions above...?
From what I managed to gather... I was NOT able to find out WHY this happens (obviously an Opera bug, but HOW to trigger it or fix it elegantly?), but I managed to fix it consistently in several different ways:
- By using fadeOut() instead of animate() to remove the box. Easiest solution. Doesn't look as great, though....
- By wrapping the select box around a <div> tag with no class or anything. Anything that has display: block, basically. I cannot confirm, however, that it works consistently, and it's not the easiest either.
- By removing the display: inline-block from .sbox -- but then, whether using 'inline' or 'block' instead, the select box fills up the entire width available. (Possibly because of the inline-blocks it contains.)
So... A possible 'hack' would be, I suppose, to turn the select box into an invisible inline-block, get its dimensions, and then turn it back into an inline element. Or, just do that for Opera, obviously... But then we lose the 1px margin that I've set in the .sbox definition.
I'm a bit at a loss...
Anyone ever heard of this problem? Did you manage to reproduce? (any version of Opera + any recent version of Wedge)
Did you hear about difficulties with .animate() and trails left behind?
Or at least, do you have any 'favorites' in my suggestions above...?
6622
Features / Re: New revs
« on January 17th, 2012, 02:04 PM »
rev 1259
(3 files, 4kb)
! It's more code than I'd have liked, but I fixed 'replace'-type skins so that skin authors don't have to import the entire list of files off the top-level skin. If you don't want to include admin.css for instance, so that you can safely get Wedge updates on that file without having to copy them manually, you no longer need to. Wedge will automatically import whatever it needs from the top-level folder. Documented in the Warm skin file, as usual. (Subs-Cache.php, Warm/skin.xml)
- Removed Andale Mono from possible editor font choices. The font is no longer shipped with modern Windows, and although it's still available in Mac OS X, there's really not much of a reason to use it over the tt tag, which in Wedge uses Consolas or Monaco, arguably better fonts for the same job. Plus, there's always Courier New in the list. (Class-Editor.php)
(3 files, 4kb)
! It's more code than I'd have liked, but I fixed 'replace'-type skins so that skin authors don't have to import the entire list of files off the top-level skin. If you don't want to include admin.css for instance, so that you can safely get Wedge updates on that file without having to copy them manually, you no longer need to. Wedge will automatically import whatever it needs from the top-level folder. Documented in the Warm skin file, as usual. (Subs-Cache.php, Warm/skin.xml)
- Removed Andale Mono from possible editor font choices. The font is no longer shipped with modern Windows, and although it's still available in Mac OS X, there's really not much of a reason to use it over the tt tag, which in Wedge uses Consolas or Monaco, arguably better fonts for the same job. Plus, there's always Courier New in the list. (Class-Editor.php)
6623
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on January 17th, 2012, 11:11 AM »Once it was announced (rather publicly) that A Game of Shadows featured Moriarty in an active role, it was not surprising that the final scenes would be the battle over the falls.
So, no, it's not automatically associated in my mind. Of course, *now* I know that Moriarty ONLY shows up in The Final Problem in the original Doyle works - he's mentioned in other stories, but only that.
And, given that it's Hollywoodised, would you really expect anything less?
Though, to be fair, it is done very amusingly. (Heck, I'll be buying the DVD when it comes out.)
This is what good TV drama is about. It gets you pumped as you watch it unfold. DW and Sherlock are the only two dramas I've seen in a while where I've not only become emotionally invested in the characters and spent time picking away at it.
Oh -- and I think the Richard Brook story was not meant for the viewer (unless suddenly Moffat decided to go for the easy hollywood-type twists?!), I think it was there to plant the seed of doubt into Watson. I'm actually not convinced Moriarty managed to change his identity -- I mean, he does say at the end that there's no such key as the computer code, so he couldn't have done it 'easily'... I think he only cooked up that file with his photographs. A decent amount of photoshopping and with the help of his henchwoman (who, I'm pretty sure, didn't do the photoshopping herself, considering her computer skills in the IT Crowd :P), he managed to pull out a satisfying game in her house.
I haven't done that in CSI or NCIS or anything else I've watched in a long time, at least nothing comes to mind where I've done that.
And Steins;Gate, by far, but I've already mentioned it too much :P
6624
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on January 17th, 2012, 09:42 AM »
Okay, watched the episode last night... (Followed with the Once upon a time reprise... It's astounding how bad it fares in comparison. I know I've always seen this as a guilty pleasure, but it really sucks hard storywise, which is a bit sad for a show that takes place in 'Storybrooke'...)
(click to show/hide)
I didn't get the whole thing with Molly... The last scene with her, where she's scared of his showing up like that.
I have yet to see A game of Shadows, so no thanks for the spoiler... :niark:
It's a bit sad that we now have to wait at least a full year for the follow-up... To think that we'll see Watson as Bilbo BEFORE that... ;)
Yeah, it had a Moffat overtone (quite obviously, even though he didn't write the episode's script, he had his hand on the global story), and made me think of Dr Who but oddly, I'd say that this year's Who was actually inspired by Holmes... In the original Final Problem story, Holmes dies for good, and when Doyle wrote The Empty House, he explained that Holmes had to go into hiding to avoid being spotted by Moriarty's henchmen. So, basically, it's the same as the Doctor faking his own death and then basically acknowledging his death to avoid getting tracked down by the Silence and things like that -- among other reasons. So it's the same here. Holmes faked his death to ensure safety for his friends. He will then track down the hitmen himself, get rid of them, and come back next year. As for how he did it... Well, we never saw Moriarty's body after he died, did we? Maybe he dropped his body... As for how he managed to make him look the same... I have no idea. Or maybe Holmes had an evil twin brother than he used the opportunity to get rid of... :P
I'm more surprised, actually, by the level of madness that Moriarty showed. That he's prepared to kill himself just to 'win' this confrontation is a tad unbelievable. The actor was pretty excellent, like last year.
I didn't get the whole thing with Molly... The last scene with her, where she's scared of his showing up like that.
I have yet to see A game of Shadows, so no thanks for the spoiler... :niark:
It's a bit sad that we now have to wait at least a full year for the follow-up... To think that we'll see Watson as Bilbo BEFORE that... ;)
6625
Plugins / Re: I just had a sad thought.
« on January 16th, 2012, 06:17 PM »
Who are we working for already, officially? :P
6626
Plugins / Re: I just had a sad thought.
« on January 16th, 2012, 03:53 PM »
Me too. But I'm more optimistic.
I'm at the dentist though right now. Have to be optimistic.
I'm at the dentist though right now. Have to be optimistic.
6627
Features / Re: Post moderation
« on January 16th, 2012, 11:47 AM »
I just think that there should be an incentive for people to check the moderation area, in case they never do... Even if it's only the admin, it's already that.
6628
Features / Re: Post moderation
« on January 16th, 2012, 08:32 AM »
I know it's not going to be site-wide, but I was thinking, for admins and global mods, they're always going to have the same numbers, aren't they..?
6629
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on January 15th, 2012, 11:20 PM »
I was talking to Pete, since he mentioned he hadn't had time to watch it so far ;)
6630
Features / Re: Post moderation
« on January 15th, 2012, 11:19 PM »
One thing that might be a good idea... How about showing, in the main menu (Admin section), the number of reported posts waiting to be read? And the number of posts and files requiring approval...
I don't think they're cached and accessible at any moment, though, so that would be the main thing to fix... Filling in this data.
Then, if we have 5 errors in the log, 3 posts waiting for moderation and 1 post waiting for approval, we could update the top-level admin number to 9 instead of 5. I think it would make a lot of sense... "9 events requiring your attention"...
I don't think they're cached and accessible at any moment, though, so that would be the main thing to fix... Filling in this data.
Then, if we have 5 errors in the log, 3 posts waiting for moderation and 1 post waiting for approval, we could update the top-level admin number to 9 instead of 5. I think it would make a lot of sense... "9 events requiring your attention"...