« Micro feature: escliteral type
Pages: [1] 2 3 styling
Reply to New Topic »

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Pages: [1] 2 3 styling
« on January 15th, 2013, 07:27 PM »
I think we need to do something with this, especially now that places are increasingly ditching use of [1] etc.

I was debating trying to use the styling we have for the note/notewarn/notenice classes for it, but then I figured it'd look wrong unless all the numbers were also encapsulated.

In other news, this is still way too small for practical use on a mobile device. Even on an iPad 3 it's too small (mind you, on an iPad 3, not even the full width is used in landscape, even including sidebar), though I won't be opposed to making it bigger just in Wireless.

Thoughts?
When we unite against a common enemy that attacks our ethos, it nurtures group solidarity. Trolls are sensational, yes, but we keep everyone honest. | Game Memorial

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,082

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Pages: [1] 2 3 styling
« Reply #2, on January 16th, 2013, 12:25 AM »
Visually, maybe, but the items should be class driven - instead of manually making it <strong> and putting [] around it, make it a span with class active or something - then you can style it the same way (using before/after to put the brackets in should you want to), or style it any other way.

It also gives themers the option of styling it how they like.

live627

  • Should five per cent appear too small / Be thankful I don't take it all / 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
  • Posts: 1,670
Re: Pages: [1] 2 3 styling
« Reply #3, on January 16th, 2013, 09:17 AM »
This was brought up at SMF a while ago. They concluded to keep the strong tags, for screen readers. Themers could still style it.
A confident man keeps quiet.whereas a frightened man keeps talking, hiding his fear.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,082
Re: Pages: [1] 2 3 styling
« Reply #4, on January 16th, 2013, 09:21 AM »
strong tags just suggest emphasis and can always be turned into something else through styling, so I'm opting to keep them, too.

As for brackets, well, yeah, I *guess* we can do without them and add them through pseudo-classes... i.e. strong:before { content: "[" }, strong:after { content: "]" }

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,082

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Pages: [1] 2 3 styling
« Reply #7, on January 16th, 2013, 02:05 PM »
Don't know about that, but probably not, not that [] would be that meaningful...
Re: Pages: [1] 2 3 styling
« Reply #8, on February 1st, 2013, 11:13 PM »
* Arantor wonders how much the gzipped content will increase as pretty much every page has two of these on it...

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,082

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Pages: [1] 2 3 styling
« Reply #10, on February 2nd, 2013, 12:00 AM »
Suppose it were implemented. It would replace [<strong>1</strong>] with <span class="active">1</span> or similar, and there's two per page on a *lot* of pages. This says to me if it were implemented, even for just wireless, it would increase bandwidth use.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,082
Re: Pages: [1] 2 3 styling
« Reply #11, on February 2nd, 2013, 12:14 AM »
Why not just use the strong tag and just this one?
It can be restyled all the same...

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Pages: [1] 2 3 styling
« Reply #12, on February 2nd, 2013, 12:21 AM »
That won't get rid of the [] though...

But yeah, hadn't actually thought of that.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,082

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: Pages: [1] 2 3 styling
« Reply #14, on February 2nd, 2013, 12:39 AM »
That's not what I mean, will still have to go edit the source to remove that. Though personally I'd rather not have the [] anyway...
« Micro feature: escliteral type
Reply to New Topic »