• After hacking up my admin backend files (post.php, edit.php, etc), I began to notice a really wierd trend.
    Why are all the ‘buttons’ in the admin area list items, then only to have the list attributes stripped via CSS? Why not just make them actual buttons?
    Which is a lot like the “get_category” function. It’s the same thing. A list item, with the list item attributes removed. Why not just make it straight text that the user can seperate with a line-break?
    It’s really boggling.

Viewing 15 replies - 31 through 45 (of 60 total)
  • Got it. You can ask questions anonymously, but to respond you have to register. Maybe this could be put in a sticky post or somthing?

    To add another point… I decided to use wordpress because MT was too confusing, bulky, and crappy in general.
    Wordpress is not an “elite” tool. It’s the easiest to use, and most powerful blogging tool that I have ever used, and I’ve used a lot. It literally takes 5 minutes to install the thing. compare that to tearing your hair out over the huge mess that is installing MT.
    The tags are simple, and easy to understand, unlike MT tags. Calling the links outputs a beautiful list of links, which you can style any way you want. What’s there not to like?

    “another example of the developers imposing their own ideas about coding on the poor old users. it’s my site, i should be able to decide whether i want to use lists or not.”
    Developers impose nothing. If you don’t like the decisions the developers make, there’s only about eleventy bazillion other blogs and CMS tools out there to choose from.
    @phrancey: I have looked at a lot of blogs and CMS – a lot – and the reason I am using WordPress is because it is by far the easiest to use and manipulate. You can use it out of the box or if you are like me and know a little PHP, you can hack on it very easily and harmlessly.
    It depends for presentation on CSS, about which I know almost nothing. But the advantages of such a clean separation of presentation and logic are so numerous that I am learning as much about CSS as I can so I can make WordPress sing.
    Oh my god, how tragic, I actually am resorting to learning something new. Damn you WordPress!




    Another advantace…. ease of style changing or “skinning”…. if I want my site to look different, one line change to point to a new CSS file, and BLAMO! Done. No need to go back in and re-arrange the HTML.

    Another thought. Valid markup and css is future proof. This may be handy for folks planning to enter into commercial contracts any time soon. Furthermore in some circumstances accessibility standards are now mandated by law both in the US and the UK. I believe though the real benefit is a hidden one and it underlies a lot of the posts here. Insistence on a proper adherence to web standards prevents any darn fool with a proprietary code producing widget of some sort from setting himself up as a *web designer*. Gives the professionals a clear field.
    The UK is awash with sites by big corporates that are an embarrassment. I give you http://www.lastminute.com as an example. For overseas readers unfamiliar with lastminute the *owner* has just pocketed fifty million dollars and change.

    Hard coding UL and LI in your php functions to call something attached to a record is not best practices, is not about web standards, and is IMO the wrong way to proceed.
    Instead, the function should be written so the site developer can then decide how to markup the resulting chunk. It ought not be a decision to do html markup in your functions. Period.
    I personally agree with a list of links being a list, however, WP developers have gone “One Step Beyond” and are including class=”post-categories” in their functions!
    Could we agree to yank this kind of practice in the builds and instead rely upon decendent selectors, e.g., div.posted ul {some attributes} — it would be much cleaner than hard coding a class selector.
    What say you?

    <i>Because we shouldn’t sacrifice semantics to compensate for your difficulty using stylesheets.</i>
    This sounds like brown shirt material — it’s crazy from a moderator!
    It is semantical to markup your links as a list, true. This ought to occur in the TEMPLATE, not in the FUNCTION!!! It is a horrible practice.
    Furthermore, even if we somehow agree that embedding markup language in an extract function is wise the we would then need to debate the worthiness of adding a class declaration to said markup, e.g., class=”post-categories”
    Take the markup out of the logic! That’s presentation in my logic…

    Rino, it’s a template function. There are other functions that get the data. If you don’t like it you’re free to use the raw data functions and format it yourself, modify the_category, or write your own function and use that.

    Let us contemplate for an awful moment what would happen if in a moment of madness the WP devs changed tack and unlisted the links. First the howls of anguish would be heard from here to Houston. Secondly we would have departed from *web standards*. Thirdly, how is, what would then be a long string of text to be served up.? How are those words going to be delienated in mysql? Are they going to come out as csv? Strictly this whole thread is off topic. If you do not support web standards or more likely have failed to appreciate why they are important you are frankly in the wrong place. Adherence to standards is closely related to accessibility. Universal access is surely a paramount objective in a popular communications tool. We have moved on. Long ago.

    I agree with allusion and the most recent Anon (hard to keep them straight…they all look the same to me).
    If a template function that is returning a list doesn’t mark it up as a list, then how will it ever get marked up?

    “It is semantical to markup your links as a list, true. This ought to occur in the TEMPLATE, not in the FUNCTION!!! It is a horrible practice.”

    Ok, so are you then going to write a chunk of PHP in your index.php template that will parse the raw output of every function? If a list is returned as a string, are you then going to loop through that string and parse it however you want so that it can be marked up? Sorry, but that’s absurd.

    “It ought not be a decision to do html markup in your functions. Period.”

    Again, how will you mark up the results, then? Are you suggesting that all data should be raw data, and markup is not necessary? If not, then explain how you would handle it in your index.php template…On second thought, don’t. The idea is to keep the index template as clean and easy to understand for the end user as can reasonably be done, and let the system (the functions) return *valid* and *semantic* markup. You’re free to style that markup as you please. If you *really* want raw data, you can access those functions directly instead of using the template functions…
    On a related note, I really hate how the car manufacturers keep putting tires on my car, and putting the steering wheel in the *front* seat! I whish they would just give me a pile of scrap metal, and some nuts and bolts, and let me do it however I want!

    A list is very similar in it’s operation to an array. But heck that would mean reading something on programming. Might be too much for some folks.

    It is a persistent refrain on this blog that the devs regard semantic markup as important. Fine. But let us not for a moment forget that, that commitment is widely shared by a lot of the users, many of whom were obviously clear on content / style separation long before they encountered Word Press. If any one wants to challenge the goal head on in this forum then fine. But you are swimming against the tide in this forum.

    “A list is very similar in it’s operation to an array. But heck that would mean reading something on programming. Might be too much for some folks.”

    Exactly my point, thanks for reinforcing it. A blogging tool should not *require* users to understand programming, and write their own parsers, whether it’s looping through an array or whatever. The idea is insane and not worthy of further discussion (if you could call it that.)
    Sounds to me like you’d be much happier writing your own tool from scratch. Parse it any way you want, mark it up however your heart desires, use plenty of animated gifs and liberal use of the blink tag, whatever floats your boat. I’ll be looking for anonymouscoward.com sometime soon…
    Damn. I’ve fallen into the Troll Trap once again 🙁

    tcervo: you forgot gif spacers and flash graphics. Why not have at it? 🙂

    Uh, no.
    One need not include an array parser in the template — that would be adding logic to your template.
    One ought to be able to use a “verb” — a function call in the template — to the application which provides the calls to the database.
    There is a template and there is a function library the template can use.
    I am wholly supportive of web standards. It just doesn’t make sense to embed them in your database calls.
    The function could, rather than return a CSV string, do something akin to MT’s container functions wherein you call what you need and the “container” loops through the entire array for you.
    The original suggestion was very sane IMO and the reaction was a bit insane — sorry if I started off with a harsh tone here but I think it is wrong. In return I basically get some “well just go fob off then you sob”. Weird community.
    A list is a block level html element as we are discussing it and NOT a programming structure. I stand by my position that both structural and presentation markup should be separate from application logic for maximum flexibility. It can be done and it has nothing to do with being a troll, disbelieving in proper and semantical html markup or any of the other things people may have said. It is just the best way to do things.
    But whatever. If there are other, more direct functions than great… I’ll have to ferret them out. I think WP is a nice project and I laud the effort. My best recommendation is above however to those who have committed time to the development.

Viewing 15 replies - 31 through 45 (of 60 total)
  • The topic ‘UL and LI’ is closed to new replies.